Objectives: Post-listing assessment of pharmaceuticals depends on national habits. In England, the assessment is based on estimates of cost per quality-adjusted life-year. These are made some considerable time after listing (negative list). In France, effectiveness, and then efficiency, is assessed immediately after listing (positive list). We propose a new formal method—the REAL method—that can help make early comparisons of the effectiveness of medical treatments.

Methods: Relative efficacies are first obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Members of the Transparency Committee (French National Authority for Health) are then consulted by questionnaire on the transposability of these results to real life. The RCT results and experts’ ratings are entered into an effect model to obtain estimates of relative effectiveness, using unidimensional scaling, and bootstrap procedures.

Results: Application of the REAL method to the example of a new drug to treat Parkinson's disease and three comparators used in the same indication provided graphs of the distributions of their relative efficacy and relative effectiveness. The new drug was found to provide no added value.

Conclusions: The REAL method is a rational, transparent, and practical procedure for comparing the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals in an immediate post-listing setting.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive summary and interpretation of the current evidence on the use and validity of statistical methods to conduct indirect comparisons of treatment effects.

Methods: A narrative review was conducted.

Results: Well-conducted methodological studies provide good evidence that adjusted indirect comparisons can lead to results similar to those from direct comparisons. The internal validity of several statistical methods to conduct indirect comparisons, therefore, has been established. Meta-regression, logistic regression, or adjusted indirect comparisons should be the methods of first choice. Unadjusted indirect comparisons are always unacceptable. Deciding whether to combine direct and indirect evidence will be a matter of informed judgment based on the similarities and dissimilarities of populations and interventions. Unverifiable assumptions with respect to the similarity of compared studies and low power are serious limitations of indirect comparisons.

Conclusions: In the absence of sufficient head-to-head evidence, adjusted indirect comparisons can be viewed as additional analytical tools to determine the comparative efficacy and effectiveness of competing interventions. Researchers who use indirect comparisons need to keep the limitations in mind.