A methodological review of population-adjusted indirect comparisons reveals inconsistent reporting and suggests publication bias

Population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) were developed in the 2010s to allow for comparisons between two treatments evaluated in different trials while accounting for differences in patient characteristics if individual patient data (IPD) are available for only one trial. Such comparisons a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2023-11, Vol.163, p.1-10
Main Authors: Serret-Larmande, Arnaud, Zenati, Belkacem, Dechartres, Agnès, Lambert, Jérôme, Hajage, David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Clinical research
Clinical trials
Data collection
Estimates
Health technology assessment
Hematology
Humans
Literature reviews
Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons
Methodological review
Methods
Pharmaceutical industry
Pharmaceuticals
Population-adjusted indirect comparisons
Publication Bias
Reproducibility of Results
Simulated treatment comparisons
Source studies
Statistical analysis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) were developed in the 2010s to allow for comparisons between two treatments evaluated in different trials while accounting for differences in patient characteristics if individual patient data (IPD) are available for only one trial. Such comparisons are increasingly used in market access applications when a pharmaceutical company compares its new treatment (with IPD available) to another treatment developed by a competitor (with only aggregated data available). This study aimed to describe the characteristics of these PAICs, assess their methodology, and describe the reported results. Original articles reporting the use of at least one PAIC were searched on PubMed between January 1, 2010 and April 2, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. We included 133 publications reporting the results of 288 PAICs. Half of the articles were published on or after May 7, 2020, and 71 (53%) pertained to onco-hematology. The pharmaceutical industry was involved in 130 (98%) articles. Key methodological aspects were reported inconsistently, with only three articles adequately reporting all aspects. A total of 161 (56%) articles reported a statistically significant benefit for the treatment evaluated on IPD. Conversely, only one PAIC significantly favored the treatment evaluated on aggregated data. Although the number of published PAICs is increasing, the methodology and transparency need to be improved. Moreover, our study strongly suggests a reporting bias. This situation calls for strengthening guidelines to improve trust in PAIC results and thus their reliability in market access applications. [Display omitted] •Population-adjusted indirect comparisons have increased in popularity recently.•Most publications focused on oncologic and hematologic pathologies.•Methodology and reporting standards were insufficient.•Collected results suggest a major reporting and publication bias.•We propose some reporting guidelines to strengthen confidence in these methods.
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.09.004