Regression augmented weighting adjustment for indirect comparisons in health decision modelling.

IF 8 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-10 DOI:10.1017/rsm.2025.10021
Chengyang Gao, Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio
{"title":"Regression augmented weighting adjustment for indirect comparisons in health decision modelling.","authors":"Chengyang Gao, Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio","doi":"10.1017/rsm.2025.10021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding the relative costs and effectiveness of all competing interventions is crucial to informing health resource allocations. However, to receive regulatory approval for efficacy, novel pharmaceuticals are typically only compared against placebo or standard of care. The relative efficacy against the best alternative intervention relies on indirect comparisons of different interventions. When treatment effect modifiers are distributed differently across trials, population adjustment is necessary to ensure a fair comparison. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons (MAIC) is the most widely adopted weighting-based method for this purpose. Nevertheless, MAIC can exhibit instability under poor population overlap. Regression-based approaches to overcome this issue are heavily dependent on parametric assumptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We introduce a novel method, 'G-MAIC,' which combines outcome regression and weighting-adjustment to address these limitations. Inspired by Bayesian survey inference, G-MAIC employs Bayesian bootstrap to propagate the uncertainty of population-adjusted estimates. We evaluate the performance of G-MAIC against standard non-adjusted methods, MAIC and Parametric G-computation, in a simulation study encompassing 18 scenarios with varying trial sample sizes, population overlaps, and covariate structures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Under poor overlap and small sample sizes, MAIC can produce non-sensible variance estimations or increased bias compared to non-adjusted methods, depending on covariate structures in the two trials compared. G-MAIC mitigates this issue, achieving comparable performance to parametric G-computation with reduced reliance on parametric assumptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>G-MAIC presents a robust alternative to the widely adopted MAIC for population-adjusted indirect comparisons. The underlying framework is flexible such that it can accommodate advanced nonparametric outcome models and alternative weighting schemes.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"16 6","pages":"900-921"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657667/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.10021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Understanding the relative costs and effectiveness of all competing interventions is crucial to informing health resource allocations. However, to receive regulatory approval for efficacy, novel pharmaceuticals are typically only compared against placebo or standard of care. The relative efficacy against the best alternative intervention relies on indirect comparisons of different interventions. When treatment effect modifiers are distributed differently across trials, population adjustment is necessary to ensure a fair comparison. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons (MAIC) is the most widely adopted weighting-based method for this purpose. Nevertheless, MAIC can exhibit instability under poor population overlap. Regression-based approaches to overcome this issue are heavily dependent on parametric assumptions.

Methods: We introduce a novel method, 'G-MAIC,' which combines outcome regression and weighting-adjustment to address these limitations. Inspired by Bayesian survey inference, G-MAIC employs Bayesian bootstrap to propagate the uncertainty of population-adjusted estimates. We evaluate the performance of G-MAIC against standard non-adjusted methods, MAIC and Parametric G-computation, in a simulation study encompassing 18 scenarios with varying trial sample sizes, population overlaps, and covariate structures.

Results: Under poor overlap and small sample sizes, MAIC can produce non-sensible variance estimations or increased bias compared to non-adjusted methods, depending on covariate structures in the two trials compared. G-MAIC mitigates this issue, achieving comparable performance to parametric G-computation with reduced reliance on parametric assumptions.

Conclusion: G-MAIC presents a robust alternative to the widely adopted MAIC for population-adjusted indirect comparisons. The underlying framework is flexible such that it can accommodate advanced nonparametric outcome models and alternative weighting schemes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

健康决策模型中间接比较的回归增强加权调整。
背景:了解所有相互竞争的干预措施的相对成本和有效性对卫生资源分配至关重要。然而,为了获得监管机构对疗效的批准,新药通常只与安慰剂或标准护理进行比较。对最佳替代干预措施的相对有效性依赖于对不同干预措施的间接比较。当治疗效果调节剂在不同试验中分布不同时,需要进行人群调整以确保公平比较。匹配调整间接比较(MAIC)是最广泛采用的基于权重的方法。然而,在低种群重叠情况下,MAIC可能表现出不稳定性。克服这一问题的基于回归的方法严重依赖于参数假设。方法:我们引入了一种新的方法,“G-MAIC”,它结合了结果回归和加权调整来解决这些局限性。受贝叶斯调查推断的启发,G-MAIC采用贝叶斯自举法传播人口调整估计的不确定性。我们在一项模拟研究中评估了G-MAIC与标准非调整方法、MAIC和参数g计算的性能,该研究包括18种不同试验样本量、总体重叠和协变量结构的情景。结果:在低重叠和小样本量的情况下,与未调整的方法相比,MAIC可能产生不合理的方差估计或偏差增加,这取决于所比较的两个试验的协变量结构。G-MAIC减轻了这个问题,实现了与参数g计算相当的性能,减少了对参数假设的依赖。结论:G-MAIC提供了一个强大的替代广泛采用的人口调整间接比较的MAIC。底层框架是灵活的,因此它可以容纳先进的非参数结果模型和可选的加权方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书