Indirect Comparisons For Health Technology Assessment: A Practical Methodological Guide And Tips With Insights From The French Transparency Commission

TL;DR

This paper offers practical guidance on conducting reliable indirect treatment comparisons for health technology assessment, emphasizing methodological rigor and assumption validation in complex medical decision contexts.

Contribution

It provides a strategic methodological framework tailored for the French HTA context, integrating expert insights and systematic review findings.

Findings

Key considerations for robust ITCs include early planning and assumption justification.

Network meta-analysis should be adapted to specific decision contexts.

Careful reporting is essential for population-adjusted indirect comparisons.

Abstract

Context: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITC) are essential when direct head-to-head evidence is unavailable. Their reliability depends on rigorous methodological choices and careful assessment of underlying assumptions. Appropriate methodological choices can help address challenges such as cross-country variations in treatment practices, ethical constraints, and evolving treatment landscapes during trial conduct. This opinion and perspective paper provides practical guidance to strengthen the quality, robustness and accuracy of ITCs in the context of health technology assessment (HTA) in France. Methods: A panel of experts in ITCs and French market access environment developed the present strategic guidance, informed by previous work reviewing HTA methodological guidelines and complemented by a systematic review of Transparency Committee opinions from the French National Authority for Health (HAS). Results: Key considerations include early anticipation of ITCs, justification of potential confounding factors, and rigorous assessment of similarity and transitivity in randomized trial-based comparisons. In network meta-analysis, the structure of the evidence network should be adapted to the specific decision context. Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons require careful reporting and interpretation of the effective sample size. When evidence relies on non-randomized clinical trials, comparisons between single-arm studies and external control arms may be appropriate under different scenarios, depending on the feasibility of conducting subsequent randomized studies. Conclusions: Robust and reliable ITCs require methods consistent with the validity of their assumptions and the strength of the available evidence. This practical guidance supports the development of rigorous ITCs to inform decision-making in complex medical contexts where direct comparisons are not feasible.