Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: interpreting current evidence and enhancing future studies

Aim: In the absence of direct evidence, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) serve as a tool for comparing treatment efficacy to guide evidence-based healthcare decisions. As an example, given the growing number of treatments available for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), it is important to accurately estimate relative treatment effects to ensure the best patient outcomes. Using CIDP as an example, the aim of this study was to review published best practices and guidelines to determine key methodological considerations for conducting robust ITCs. Materials & methods: ITCs in CIDP were identified and evaluated against best practices and guidelines, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technical Support Document 18, the Health Technology Assessment guidelines for assessment of direct and indirect comparisons, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension statement for the reporting of systematic reviews and incorporating network meta-analyses. Results: Recently published ITCs in CIDP were limited, with two conference materials identified. Both studies utilized matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons to assess the comparative efficacy of CIDP therapies. As per best practices and guidelines reviewed, key methodological considerations associated with comparing CIDP pivotal trials to conduct ITCs were identified. Differences in trial target populations and baseline characteristics, heterogeneity in study designs and outcome definitions, and inappropriate pooling of therapies may limit comparability between trials if not carefully controlled for using available frameworks. Conclusion: In the absence of direct comparative evidence, ITCs are necessary and useful tools to compare treatment efficacy. Available frameworks can guide ITC feasibility and limit heterogeneity, to ensure robust and reliable ITC outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Published
2026-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2026-0077
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: interpreting current evidence and enhancing future studies

Muhaimen Siddiqui, Barkha P. Patel, Shicheng Weng, Batyrkhan Kuatov et al.
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: interpreting current evidence and enhancing future studies

Muhaimen Siddiqui, Barkha P. Patel, Shicheng Weng, Batyrkhan Kuatov, Laurence Undreiner, Paul Spin, Diana Tran
article en

Abstract

Aim: In the absence of direct evidence, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) serve as a tool for comparing treatment efficacy to guide evidence-based healthcare decisions. As an example, given the growing number of treatments available for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), it is important to accurately estimate relative treatment effects to ensure the best patient outcomes. Using CIDP as an example, the aim of this study was to review published best practices and guidelines to determine key methodological considerations for conducting robust ITCs. Materials & methods: ITCs in CIDP were identified and evaluated against best practices and guidelines, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technical Support Document 18, the Health Technology Assessment guidelines for assessment of direct and indirect comparisons, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension statement for the reporting of systematic reviews and incorporating network meta-analyses. Results: Recently published ITCs in CIDP were limited, with two conference materials identified. Both studies utilized matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons to assess the comparative efficacy of CIDP therapies. As per best practices and guidelines reviewed, key methodological considerations associated with comparing CIDP pivotal trials to conduct ITCs were identified. Differences in trial target populations and baseline characteristics, heterogeneity in study designs and outcome definitions, and inappropriate pooling of therapies may limit comparability between trials if not carefully controlled for using available frameworks. Conclusion: In the absence of direct comparative evidence, ITCs are necessary and useful tools to compare treatment efficacy. Available frameworks can guide ITC feasibility and limit heterogeneity, to ensure robust and reliable ITC outcomes.

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
EVERSANA (Canada) (CA), CSL (Switzerland) (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.