Evidence on the relative effectiveness of treatments is rarely available from head-to-head studies, and as a result published results from clinical trials must often be used for indirect comparisons via network meta-analysis (NMA). Although often very effective, NMA may be challenging if there is an incomplete or disjointed evidence network, or substantial heterogeneity between studies, or when key treatments to be compared are separated by multiple intermediate steps or linking comparisons within the network. STC and MAIC can often help to overcome these challenges, and may also provide additional depth and a different perspective when challenges do not exist. Submissions to health authorities have successfully employed these methods, and they may be required in the future.
Evidera’s team of statisticians and modelers are innovators in alternative approaches to indirect comparison, with publications in this area for over five years. We have successfully supported National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) submissions where targeted approaches have been applied for indirect comparisons. We are able to leverage world-class health economics, modeling and literature review teams for scientific and strategic support in assessing the need and suitability of targeted comparison, skillfully executing the analyses, clearly communicating the findings, and incorporating these into health economic assessments and agency submissions.