Between Rigor and Relevance: Why the EU HTA Guidelines on Indirect Comparisons Miss the Mark
Abstract
Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are essential in the context of joint clinical assessments (JCAs) under Regulation (European Union [EU]) 2021/2282, bridging evidence gaps where head-to-head data are lacking and enabling assessment across diverse national patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) requirements. This paper critically reviews the EU Health Technology Assessment Coordination Group's (HTACG) guidelines on direct and indirect comparisons, with particular focus on ITCs. While the guidelines promote transparency and rigorous evaluation of assumptions, they adopt a restrictive stance on assumption violations, the use of unanchored comparisons, and population-adjusted methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparisons (STC). The guidance shows limited support for Bayesian methods and undervalues meta-regression in favor of subgroup analyses. Operational implications for health technology developers (HTDs) are substantial, including new requirements for dual systematic reviews, multiple network structures, and shifted null hypothesis testing. Moreover, the guidelines effectively dissuade the use of non-randomized comparisons in rare or rapidly evolving indications and may inadvertently hinder access to effective treatments. Emerging practices such as external control arms (ECA) or target trial emulation are underdeveloped. Notably, there is no indication that the guidelines are grounded in systematic methodological validation studies. As JCAs evolve, greater methodological flexibility, empirical grounding, and clear operational guidance will be essential. Refining the guidelines along these principles would enhance their practical utility, mitigate intrinsic assessment variability, support consistent assessments across Member States (MS), and ultimately improve patient access to innovative therapies.
Related
- Evaluating Costs and Efficacy of rFVIII Prophylaxis Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Hemophilia A
- Body-weight variation as a potential indirect indicator of abdominal fat weight with relevance to laying rate in 90-week-old laying hens
- LLM-assisted analytical review catches statistical errors that human researchers miss: documented evidence from two computational biology case studies
- The memory we miss: exploratory behavior as a window into developmental recognition processes.
- The Memory We Miss: Exploratory Behavior as a Window into Developmental Recognition Processes
BibTeX
@article{aballea2026between,
title = {{Between Rigor and Relevance: Why the EU HTA Guidelines on Indirect Comparisons Miss the Mark}},
author = {Samuel Aballéa and Mondher Toumi and Piotr Wojciechowski and Emilie Clay and Bruno Falissard and Steven Simoens and Pascal Auquier and Stefano Capri and Joerg Ruof and Frank-Ulrich Fricke and Renato Bernardini and Oriol Solà-Morales and Laurent Boyer},
journal = {Journal of Market Access \& Health Policy},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jmahp14020030},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05845227v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Between Rigor and Relevance: Why the EU HTA Guidelines on Indirect Comparisons Miss the Mark
AU - Samuel Aballéa
AU - Mondher Toumi
AU - Piotr Wojciechowski
AU - Emilie Clay
AU - Bruno Falissard
AU - Steven Simoens
AU - Pascal Auquier
AU - Stefano Capri
AU - Joerg Ruof
AU - Frank-Ulrich Fricke
AU - Renato Bernardini
AU - Oriol Solà-Morales
AU - Laurent Boyer
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - Journal of Market Access & Health Policy
DO - 10.3390/jmahp14020030
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05845227v1
AB - Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are essential in the context of joint clinical assessments (JCAs) under Regulation (European Union [EU]) 2021/2282, bridging evidence gaps where head-to-head data are lacking and enabling assessment across diverse national patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) requirements. This paper critically reviews the EU Health Technology Assessment Coordination Group's (HTACG) guidelines on direct and indirect comparisons, with particular focus on ITCs. While the guidelines promote transparency and rigorous evaluation of assumptions, they adopt a restrictive stance on assumption violations, the use of unanchored comparisons, and population-adjusted methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparisons (STC). The guidance shows limited support for Bayesian methods and undervalues meta-regression in favor of subgroup analyses. Operational implications for health technology developers (HTDs) are substantial, including new requirements for dual systematic reviews, multiple network structures, and shifted null hypothesis testing. Moreover, the guidelines effectively dissuade the use of non-randomized comparisons in rare or rapidly evolving indications and may inadvertently hinder access to effective treatments. Emerging practices such as external control arms (ECA) or target trial emulation are underdeveloped. Notably, there is no indication that the guidelines are grounded in systematic methodological validation studies. As JCAs evolve, greater methodological flexibility, empirical grounding, and clear operational guidance will be essential. Refining the guidelines along these principles would enhance their practical utility, mitigate intrinsic assessment variability, support consistent assessments across Member States (MS), and ultimately improve patient access to innovative therapies.
SN - 2001-6689
ER -