Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 15, 2026
The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
Published on: June 12, 2020
Evaluating Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Practice: A Case Study of Patients with
Jason Shafrin1, Anshu Shrestha1, Amitabh Chandra2
1Precision Health Economics, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
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 < 0.737). The results were similar for three of four sensitivity analyses. When we applied MAIC with placebo-arm matching, however, guanfacine reduced symptoms more than atomoxetine (Δ: -3.9, p < 0.004). We discuss the implication of this finding and advise MAIC practitioners to carefully consider the use of placebo-arm matching, depending on the presence of residual confounding across trials. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Insights
Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) helps evaluate ADHD treatments by adjusting patient data. Results showed similar efficacy for guanfacine and atomoxetine, but placebo-arm matching altered the findings.
Area of Science:
- Pharmacology
- Biostatistics
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can be biased by patient characteristic differences across trials.
- Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is a method to adjust for these differences by weighting individual patient data.
- There is currently no established consensus on the optimal implementation of MAIC.
Observation:
- This study applied MAIC to compare guanfacine extended release and atomoxetine hydrochloride for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptom reduction.
- MAIC sensitivity was assessed based on matched patient characteristics, statistical moments, weighting matrix, and placebo-arm matching.
- Standard MAIC indicated similar efficacy between guanfacine and atomoxetine.
Findings:
- MAIC revealed comparable reductions in ADHD symptoms (ADHD Rating Scale IV score) between guanfacine and atomoxetine (Δ: 0.4, p < 0.737).
- Three out of four sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
- However, incorporating placebo-arm matching into MAIC suggested guanfacine had a greater effect than atomoxetine (Δ: -3.9, p < 0.004).
Implications:
- The choice of matching strategy in MAIC can significantly influence treatment efficacy estimates.
- Placebo-arm matching may be particularly sensitive to residual confounding between trials.
- Practitioners should carefully consider the use of placebo-arm matching in MAIC, evaluating potential confounding factors.
More Related Videos
05:32Comparing Eye-tracking Data of Children with High-functioning ASD, Comorbid ADHD, and of a Control Watching Social Videos
Published on: December 7, 2018
10:02Event Related Potentials ERPs and other EEG Based Methods for Extracting Biomarkers of Brain Dysfunction: Examples from Pediatric Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD
Published on: March 12, 2020
Related Concept Videos
01:30Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Diagnostic Criteria and Symptoms
To diagnose ADHD, symptoms must manifest before age 12 and be evident across multiple settings....
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:13Multiple Comparison Tests
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...