Katharine Batt, Robert Klamroth, Maria Elisa Mancuso, Andreas Tiede, Lorenzo G Mantovani
{"title":"The Importance of Clinical Context and Consistency in Methodology When Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons (MAICs) to Compare Outcomes","authors":"Katharine Batt, Robert Klamroth, Maria Elisa Mancuso, Andreas Tiede, Lorenzo G Mantovani","doi":"10.2147/ijgm.s464226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Abstract:</strong> Hemophilia A is rare, which makes large, randomized, controlled, statistically driven, head-to-head comparison trials difficult. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) are validated statistical tools designed to help make the results of non-comparative trials more comparable. The purpose of this commentary is to provide an insight into the MAIC method, in order to assist the hemophilia community with interpretation of MAIC data. It includes a comparison of the findings from previously published MAICs comparing recombinant factor replacement options and their methodologies. As MAICs are being used more often to compare treatment options for patients with hemophilia A, it is paramount that robust and consistent methodologies for cross-trial comparisons are used and that all efficacy analysis findings are linked to factor utilization.<br/><br/><strong>Keywords:</strong> hemophilia, MAIC, methodology<br/>","PeriodicalId":14131,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of General Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/ijgm.s464226","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract: Hemophilia A is rare, which makes large, randomized, controlled, statistically driven, head-to-head comparison trials difficult. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) are validated statistical tools designed to help make the results of non-comparative trials more comparable. The purpose of this commentary is to provide an insight into the MAIC method, in order to assist the hemophilia community with interpretation of MAIC data. It includes a comparison of the findings from previously published MAICs comparing recombinant factor replacement options and their methodologies. As MAICs are being used more often to compare treatment options for patients with hemophilia A, it is paramount that robust and consistent methodologies for cross-trial comparisons are used and that all efficacy analysis findings are linked to factor utilization.
期刊介绍：
The International Journal of General Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on general and internal medicine, pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment protocols. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research and clinical studies across all disease areas.
A key focus of the journal is the elucidation of disease processes and management protocols resulting in improved outcomes for the patient. Patient perspectives such as satisfaction, quality of life, health literacy and communication and their role in developing new healthcare programs and optimizing clinical outcomes are major areas of interest for the journal.
As of 1st April 2019, the International Journal of General Medicine will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
