Although direct comparisons are always preferred, it is not always possible or affordable to conduct them. Experts can utilize other methods, including a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). With this method, research can be conducted to understand and compare treatment outcomes – even when the clinical studies in question have population differences. Professor Andrew Armstrong, Director of Research at Duke Cancer Institute, explores what MAIC analyses entail, including their benefits and limitations, and how variations in patient characteristics can be adjusted, to give a comparative data picture. #MAICanalysis #ScienceFirstForPatients
Great insight Andrew Armstrong! Hope you are well and looking forward to seeing you at the upcoming Duke events!
Enterprise Leader | Global Marketing Executive & Senior Medical Affairs leader | Oncology & Prostate cancer disease| Geographical expertise GCC, MEA, Russia, Turkey, APAC, LATAM, Europe, China and Japan
1wGreat post, Andrew Armstrong MAIC is such a valuable approach in today’s complex research landscape—especially when head-to-head trials aren’t feasible “we see this a lot in PCa”. It’s fascinating how this method helps bridge evidence gaps by adjusting for the differences in population, ultimately supporting better-informed treatment decisions. Thanks for highlighting both the potential and the limitations so clearly—science-driven innovation like this truly puts patients first. #MAICanalysis #ScienceFirstForPatients