Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
9 October 2026

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

Authors: Batyrkhan Kuatov [email protected], Barkha P Patel, Muhaimen Siddiqui, Diana Tran, Paul Spin, Laurence Undreiner, and Shicheng WengAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 15, Number 11
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2026-0077
PDFFormats

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.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is a statistical method used to compare different therapies for the same disease and can be used to guide treatment recommendations for patients. The use of ITCs is particularly relevant for rare diseases, such as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), that have multiple treatment options, but no clinical trials testing therapies side by side to determine which option works best. This study examined ITCs in CIDP to demonstrate important methodological requirements to ensure unbiased comparisons.

What methodology/protocol is described?

A review of how ITCs were used in CIDP studies was conducted and then compared with accepted best-practice guidelines.

What were the results?

Several issues were identified in two ITCs conducted in CIDP, including differences between treatments and their associated clinical trials, as well as inappropriate use of certain statistical methods and lack of transparent reporting. These challenges have the potential to limit comparability between treatments if not carefully controlled by following appropriate guidelines.

Why is this important?

This study highlights the importance of using ITCs correctly to ensure accurate comparison of different treatments when direct comparative evidence is limited.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary material.docx)
Download, DOCX (80.87 KB)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Kiefer C, Sturtz S, Bender R. Indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses. Dtsch Arztebl. Int. 112(47), 803–808 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Tanaka S, Igarashi A, De Moor R et al. A targeted review of worldwide indirect treatment comparison guidelines and best practices. Value Health 27(9), 1179–1190 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Igarashi A, Tanaka S, De Moor R et al. Indirect treatment comparisons in healthcare decision making: a targeted review of regulatory approval, reimbursement, and pricing recommendations globally for oncology drugs in 2021–2023. Adv. Ther. 42(1), 52–69 (2025).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
HTA Coordination Group. Practical guideline for quantitative evidence synthesis: direct and indirect comparisons. (2024). https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1f6b8a70-5ce0-404e-9066-120dc9a8df75_en?filename=hta_practical-guideline_direct-and-indirect-comparisons_en.pdf
Google Scholar
5.
Macabeo B, Quenéchdu A, Aballéa S, François C, Boyer L, Laramée P. Methods for indirect treatment comparison: results from a systematic literature review. J. Mark. Access Health Policy 12(2), 58–80 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Health Technology Assessment Coordination Group. Methodological guideline for quantitative evidence synthesis: Direct and indirect comparisons. HTA CG: European Commission (2024). https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4ec8288e-6d15-49c5-a490-d8ad7748578f_en
Google Scholar
• An health technology assessment guideline for the assessment of direct and indirect comparisons.
7.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann. Intern. Med. 162(11), 777–784 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• A guideline to improve the completeness of reporting and incorporation of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and network meta-analyses.
8.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE. Unit NDS: Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, (2016). http://www.nicedsu.org.uk
Google Scholar
• Technical support document outlining methodology for conducting population-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) for submissions to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
9.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med. Decis. Making 38(2), 200–211 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Mathey EK, Park SB, Hughes RAC et al. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: from pathology to phenotype. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psych. 86(9), 973–985 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Rajabally YA. Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: current therapeutic approaches and future outlooks. Immunotargets Ther. 13, 99–110 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Van den Bergh PYK, van Doorn PA, Hadden RDM et al. European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline on diagnosis and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: report of a joint task force—second revision. Eur. J. Neurol. 28(11), 3556–3583 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Cocito D, Peci E, Torrieri MC, Clerico M. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: a historical perspective. J. Clin. Med. 12(22), 6961 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Celico L, Alves A, Iannazzo S, Arvin-Berod C, Stettner M, Skripuletz T. Indirect treatment comparison of efgartigimod vs immunoglobulins in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Value Health. 27(12 Suppl.), S34 (2024).
Google Scholar
•• This matching-adjusted indirect comparison(MAIC) indicated that efgartigimod had comparable or greater efficacy than immunoglobulins (IGs) for the treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), despite study limitations and limited comparability of studies.
15.
Cornblath DR, Wilson J, Baquie M, Wissmann C, Clodi E. Intravenous immunoglobulin versus efgartigimod for cidp: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison. P455. Peripheral Nervous Society (PNS) Annual Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland (17–20 May 2025).
Google Scholar
•• This MAIC indicated comparable or greater efficacy of IVIGs for the treatment of CIPD compared with efgartigimod.
16.
Cornblath DR. Broadening horizons in autoimmune diseases: Immunoglobulin therapy in an evolving landscape. American Academy of Neurology, CA, USA (2025). https://www.aan.com/msa/Public/Events/Details/18309
Google Scholar
•• This MAIC indicated comparable or greater efficacy of IVIGs for the treatment of CIPD compared with efgartigimod.
17.
Bril V, Hadden RDM, Brannagan TH 3rd et al. Hyaluronidase-facilitated subcutaneous immunoglobulin 10% as maintenance therapy for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: the advance-CIDP 1 randomized controlled trial. J. Peripher. Nerv. Syst. 28(3), 436–449 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
van Schaik IN, Bril V, van Geloven N et al. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin for maintenance treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (path): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 17(1), 35–46 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Phillippo DM, Dias S, Elsada A, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Population adjustment methods for indirect comparisons: a review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisals. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 35(3), 221–228 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Petto H, Kadziola Z, Brnabic A, Saure D, Belger M. Alternative weighting approaches for anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons via a common comparator. Value Health 22(1), 85–91 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health 15(6), 940–947 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Allen JA, Lin J, Basta I et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of subcutaneous efgartigimod in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (ADHERE): a multicentre, randomised-withdrawal, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial. Lancet Neurol. 23(10), 1013–1024 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Draak TH, Vanhoutte EK, van Nes SI et al. Changing outcome in inflammatory neuropathies: rasch-comparative responsiveness. Neurology 83(23), 2124–2132 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 323(7321), 1123–1124 (2001).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Saure D, Schacht A, Kadziola Z, Brnabic AJM. Combination of several matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) with an application in psoriasis. Pharm. Stat. 19(5), 532–540 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Senn SJ. Overstating the evidence: double counting in meta-analysis and related problems. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9, 10 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Hussein H, Nevill CR, Meffen A et al. Double-counting of populations in evidence synthesis in public health: a call for awareness and future methodological development. BMC Public Health 22(1), 1827 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med. Decis. Making 33(5), 607–617 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50(6), 683–691 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
31.
Levy NS, Kezios KL. The same but different?: a systematic review of the impact of selection and collider bias on internal validity. Epidemiology 36(4), 473–481 (2025).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Canada's Drug Agency. Reimbursement recommendation: efgartigimod alfa injection (Vyvgart SC). Can. J. Health Technol. 6(1), 1–15 (2026).
Google Scholar
33.
Canada's Drug Agency. Reimbursement review: efgartigimod alfa injection (Vyvgart SC). (2025). https://canjhealthtechnol.ca/index.php/cjht/article/view/SR0894r/SR0894r
Google Scholar
34.
Ades AE, Welton NJ, Dias S, Phillippo DM, Caldwell DM. Twenty years of network meta-analysis: continuing controversies and recent developments. Res. Synth. Methods 15(5), 702–727 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar