Evaluating Matching‐Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Practice: A Case Study of Patients with Attention‐Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Jason Shafrin, Anshu Shrestha, Amitabh Chandra, M. Haim Erder and Vanja Sikirica

Health Economics, 2017, vol. 26, issue 11, 1459-1466

Abstract: Differences in patient characteristics across trials may bias efficacy estimates from indirect treatment comparisons. To address this issue, matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) measures treatment efficacy after weighting individual patient data to match patient characteristics across trials. To date, however, there is no consensus on how best to implement MAIC. To address this issue, we applied MAIC to measure how two attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments (guanfacine extended release and atomoxetine hydrochloride) affect patients' ADHD symptoms, as measured by the ADHD Rating Scale IV score. We tested MAIC sensitivity to: matched patient characteristics, matched statistical moments, weighting matrix, and placebo‐arm matching (i.e., matching on outcomes in the placebo arm). After applying MAIC, guanfacine and atomoxetine had similar reductions in ADHD symptoms (Δ: 0.4, p

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3408

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:11:p:1459-1466

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().