Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study of Statistical Performance

J. Signorovitch,R. Ayyagari,D. Cheng,E. Q. Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.271

IF: 5.156

2013-01-01

Value in Health

Abstract:When indirectly comparing treatments across separate clinical trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can help avoid bias due to cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics. The approach uses propensity scores to adjust individual patient data from trials of one treatment to match published baseline characteristics from trials of comparator treatments. We assessed the statistical properties of MAIC, including the accuracy of estimated treatment effects and their standard errors, in a simulation study. Each simulation scenario included two randomized controlled trials with a common control arm and a dichotomous outcome. Sample sizes ranged from 125 to 1000 patients per arm. Cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics were simulated to generate low, moderate and high levels of potential bias. For each simulated dataset, MAIC was used to estimate the relative treatment effect using individual patient data from one trial and aggregate data from the other. Estimated treatment effects and standard errors were evaluated for accuracy across 1000 simulations. Indirect comparisons without matching adjustment were evaluated in parallel. By design, indirect comparisons without matching exhibited biases ranging from 10% to 200% of the true treatment effect across simulation scenarios. In contrast, the MAIC estimators exhibited negligible bias, falling within +/- 2% of the true treatment effect when all confounding variables were considered. The sandwich estimator closely approximated the true standard errors, and was slightly conservative, overestimating by as much as 8%, but usually less than 5%. These findings were consistent across the range of investigated sample sizes and levels of confounding. MAIC can remove bias due to observed cross-trial differences and provide reliable assessments of statistical uncertainty for indirect comparisons that combine individual patient data and aggregate data.