Marginalization of Regression-Adjusted Treatment Effects in Indirect Comparisons with Limited Patient-Level Data
Antonio Remiro-Azócar, Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio
备注：
87 pages (28 of supplementary appendices and references), 5 figures. Final update for consistency with a related paper (2108.12208) accepted for publication by Research Synthesis Methods (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1565). arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2004.14800
Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average the conditional estimate over the population of interest to recover a compatible marginal treatment effect. We propose a marginalization method based on parametric G-computation that can be easily applied where the outcome regression is a generalized linear model or a Cox model. In addition, we introduce a novel general-purpose method based on multiple imputation, which we term multiple imputation marginalization (MIM) and is applicable to a wide range of models. Both methods can accommodate a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle for the methods and benchmarks their performance against MAIC and the conventional outcome regression. The marginalized outcome regression approaches achieve more precise and more accurate estimates than MAIC, particularly when covariate overlap is poor, and yield unbiased marginal treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. Furthermore, the marginalized regression-adjusted estimates provide greater precision and accuracy than the conditional estimates produced by the conventional outcome regression, which are systematically biased because the measure of effect is non-collapsible.
Reframing Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons as a Transportability Problem: An Estimand-Based Perspective and Implications for Health Technology Assessment
In this commentary, we highlight the importance of: (1) carefully considering and clarifying whether a marginal or conditional treatment effect is of interest in a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison; and (2) developing distinct methodologies for estimating the different measures of effect. The appropriateness of each methodology depends on the preferred target of inference.
Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is based on propensity score weighting, which is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average th…
Indirect comparisons have been increasingly used to compare data from different sources such as clinical trials and observational data in, e.g., a disease registry. To adjust for population differences between data sources, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) has been used in several applications including health technology assessment and drug regulatory submissions. In fact, MAIC can be considered as a special case of a range of methods known as calibration estimation in survey sampling. However, to our best knowledge, this connection has not been examined in detail. This paper makes…
Anchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small. A modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parame…
Population-adjusted indirect comparisons estimate treatment effects when access to individual patient data is limited and there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers. Popular methods include matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). There is limited formal evaluation of these methods and whether they can be used to accurately compare treatments. Thus, we undertake a comprehensive simulation study to compare standard unadjusted indirect comparisons, MAIC and STC across 162 scenarios. This simulation study assumes that the trials are investi…
Estimating marginal treatment effects from observational studies and indirect treatment comparisons: When are standardization-based methods preferable to those based on propensity score weighting?
Indirect comparisons of treatment-specific outcomes across separate studies often inform decision-making in the absence of head-to-head randomized comparisons. Differences in baseline characteristics between study populations may introduce confounding bias in such comparisons. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (Signorovitch et al., 2010) has been used to adjust for differences in observed baseline covariates when the individual patient-level data (IPD) are available for only one study and aggregate data (AGD) are available for the other study. The approach weights outcomes from the …
This commentary regards a recent simulation study conducted by Aouni, Gaudel-Dedieu and Sebastien, evaluating the performance of different versions of matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) in an anchored scenario with a common comparator. The simulation study uses survival outcomes and the Cox proportional hazards regression as the outcome model. It concludes that using the LASSO for variable selection is preferable to balancing a maximal set of covariates. However, there are no treatment effect modifiers in imbalance in the study. The LASSO is more efficient because it selects a subset…
Disagreement remains on what the target estimand should be for population-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. This debate is of central importance for policy-makers and applied practitioners in health technology assessment. Misunderstandings are based on properties inherent to estimators, not estimands, and on generalizing conclusions based on linear regression to non-linear models. Estimators of marginal estimands need not be unadjusted and may be covariate-adjusted. The population-level interpretation of conditional estimates follows from collapsibility and does not necessarily hold for…
