Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2024 Jul 1;109(7):2032-2034.
doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.284534.

Indirect treatment comparisons: how to MAIC it right?

Emmanuel Bachy  1
Affiliations
Editorial

Indirect treatment comparisons: how to MAIC it right?

Emmanuel Bachy. Haematologica. .
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Principle and level of clinical evidence of matching-adjusted indirect comparison. (A) Level of evidence of various treatment comparisons from unadjusted and unmatched comparison (poorest level of evidence) to randomized treatment allocation (gold standard). The list of various statistical approaches to make patient population as comparable as possible is not exhaustive. (B) Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) allows for the comparison between aggregated patient data (e.g., based on patient characteristics from a trial publication) and individual patient data (from another trial or a real-life cohort or any other source of individual data). Basically, by removing or pondering patient characteristics to closely match final aggregated data (e.g., patient median age depicted here), the final group of patients from the cohort with available individual patient data (IPD) is rendered as similar as possible to the cohort for which only aggregated data are available (e.g., here, similar median age). This is performed for all variables that are considered as critical confounders for treatment comparison. Finally, outcome is compared in the 2 matched populations; here, the prognosis of the IPD is depicted as better after matching (blue line), while, by definition, the survival of the aggregated data population is left unchanged after matching (red line). Depicted data and survivals are for illustration only and are not based on true or relevant values or weights. PS: propensity score; yr: year.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Maurer MJ, Casulo C, Larson MC, et al. . Matching-adjusted indirect comparison from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes Consortium for Real World Evidence (LEO CReWE) study to a clinical trial of mosunetuzumab in relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma. Haematologica. 2024;109(7):2177-2185. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Budde LE, Sehn LH, Matasar M, et al. . Safety and efficacy of mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(8):1055-1065. - PubMed
    1. Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, et al. . Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935-945. - PubMed
    1. Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. . Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940-947. - PubMed
    1. Batlevi CL, Sha F, Alperovich A, et al. . Follicular lymphoma in the modern era: survival, treatment outcomes, and identification of high-risk subgroups. Blood Cancer J. 2020;10(7):74. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types