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.

Advantages of Monte Carlo Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects

Indirect Effects in Sequential Mediation Models: Evaluating Methods for Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Interval Formation

Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods

Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models

Correcting the Bias Correction for the Bootstrap Confidence Interval in Mediation Analysis

Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions

Heterogeneous interventional indirect effects with multiple mediators: non-parametric and semi-parametric approaches

Nonparametric estimators of interventional (transported) direct and indirect effects that accommodate multiple mediators and multiple intermediate confounders

Robust and Flexible Estimation of Stochastic Mediation Effects: A Proposed Method and Example in a Randomized Trial Setting

Why You Should Not Estimate Mediated Effects Using the Difference-in-Coefficients Method When the Outcome is Binary

Heterogeneous Indirect Effects for Multiple Mediators using Interventional Effect Models

Efficient and flexible estimation of natural mediation effects under intermediate confounding and monotonicity constraints

Mediation effects that emulate a target randomised trial: Simulation-based evaluation of ill-defined interventions on multiple mediators

Power of Mediation Effects Using Bootstrap Resampling

Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects.

Conflating marginal and conditional treatment effects: Comments on 'Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study'

Non-parametric efficient causal mediation with intermediate confounders

Monte Carlo Based Statistical Power Analysis for Mediation Models: Methods and Software

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

Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations.

A statistical method for synthesizing mediation analyses using the product of coefficient approach across multiple trials