A method for comparing multiple therapies within a single analysis, a Network Meta-Analysis (NMA), makes use of direct and indirect evidence within a network of randomized controlled studies.
While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generally provide higher-quality evidence than NMAs, head-to-head RCTs are often slow and expensive.
Payers worldwide have turned to NMAs in recent years to assess the value of various treatment options, according to Dr. Philip J. Mease, a rheumatologist affiliated with the Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and the University of Washington in Seattle.
In the United States, insurance companies wanting to ascertain the value of various medications for a single indication have turned to NMAs.
“In the absence of head-to-head trials, NMAs are needed for insurers and payers to figure out a drug’s value proposition,” Mease…