Abstract Evidence-based health-care decision making requires comparisons of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized, controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all ...treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best choice(s) of treatment. Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than a traditional meta-analysis. This report from the ISPOR Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on the interpretation of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to assist policymakers and health-care professionals in using its findings for decision making. We start with an overview of how networks of randomized, controlled trials allow multiple treatment comparisons of competing interventions. Next, an introduction to the synthesis of the available evidence with a focus on terminology, assumptions, validity, and statistical methods is provided, followed by advice on critically reviewing and interpreting an indirect treatment comparison or network meta-analysis to inform decision making. We finish with a discussion of what to do if there are no direct or indirect treatment comparisons of randomized, controlled trials possible and a health-care decision still needs to be made.
Abstract Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all ...treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s). Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct evidence and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than traditional meta-analysis. This report from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on technical aspects of conducting network meta-analyses (our use of this term includes most methods that involve meta-analysis in the context of a network of evidence). We start with a discussion of strategies for developing networks of evidence. Next we briefly review assumptions of network meta-analysis. Then we focus on the statistical analysis of the data: objectives, models (fixed-effects and random-effects), frequentist versus Bayesian approaches, and model validation. A checklist highlights key components of network meta-analysis, and substantial examples illustrate indirect treatment comparisons (both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) and network meta-analysis. A further section discusses eight key areas for future research.
The systematic integration of quality-of-life (QOL) assessment into the clinical setting, although deemed important, infrequently occurs. Barriers include the need for a practical approach perceived ...as useful and efficient by patients and clinicians and the inability of clinicians to readily identify the value of integrating QOL assessments into the clinical setting. We discuss the use of QOL data in patient care and review approaches used to integrate QOL assessment into the clinical setting. Additionally, we highlight select QOL measures that have been successfully applied in the clinical setting. These measures have been shown to identify key QOL issues, improve patient-clinician communications, and improve and enhance patient care. However, the work done to date requires continued development. Continued research is needed that provides information about benefits and addresses limitations of current approaches.
Abstract Despite the great realized or potential value of network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial evidence to inform health care decision making, many decision makers might not be ...familiar with these techniques. The Task Force developed a consensus-based 26-item questionnaire to help decision makers assess the relevance and credibility of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to help inform health care decision making. The relevance domain of the questionnaire (4 questions) calls for assessments about the applicability of network meta-analysis results to the setting of interest to the decision maker. The remaining 22 questions belong to an overall credibility domain and pertain to assessments about whether the network meta-analysis results provide a valid answer to the question they are designed to answer by examining 1) the used evidence base, 2) analysis methods, 3) reporting quality and transparency, 4) interpretation of findings, and 5) conflicts of interest. The questionnaire aims to help readers of network meta-analysis opine about their confidence in the credibility and applicability of the results of a network meta-analysis, and help make decision makers aware of the subtleties involved in the analysis of networks of randomized trial evidence. It is anticipated that user feedback will permit periodic evaluation and modification of the questionnaire.
Abstract Objective To compare the efficacy of bazedoxifene and oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis (i.e., ...the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool FRAX score ≥ 20%), based on currently available evidence from randomized controlled trials. Methods Randomized controlled trials evaluating the NVF relative risk reduction (RRR) with oral bisphosphonates or bazedoxifene were identified by a systematic literature review and combined by means of a network meta-analysis. A subgroup of patients with a FRAX score of 20% or more in the bazedoxifene phase III osteoporosis study was selected as the population of interest on the basis of the bazedoxifene label. In one analysis (analysis 1), the placebo response of the subgroup with a FRAX score of 20% or more was the benchmark to select comparable bisphosphonate trials. Additional analyses incorporated the aggregate data from the bisphosphonate trials with all the FRAX subgroups (analysis 2) or with the individual patient data from the bazedoxifene trial (analysis 3). Results Nine identified bisphosphonate trials (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate; N = 23,440 patients) with a similar placebo response as observed for the subgroup of high risk patients in the bazedoxifene trial were included in analysis 1. The results of the network meta-analysis of this study set suggest that bazedoxifene is expected to have an RRR of 0.43 (95% credible interval CrI −0.19 to 0.72) versus alendronate, 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05–0.81) versus ibandronate, and 0.39 (95% CrI −0.29 to 0.70) versus risedronate. Analyses in which treatment effects with bisphosphonates were projected to a population with a FRAX score of 20% or more with meta-regression approaches (analysis 2 and analysis 3) provide similar findings. Conclusion Based on an indirect comparison of randomized trials, bazedoxifene is expected to have at least a comparable RRR of NVF as alendronate, ibandronate, and risedronate in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis.
The ASCOT-LLA and ALLHAT-LLT trials provide conflicting evidence of the efficacy of statins in decreasing cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. We performed a ...meta-analysis to compare the overall efficacy of statins in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients enrolled in major randomized clinical trials. We systematically reviewed PubMed publications from 1985 onward for placebo-controlled randomized trials that examined the effect of statins on cardiac morbidity and mortality. Only trials that followed ≥1,000 patients for ≥2 years were included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included cardiac or CV death, major coronary events, or major CV events. Pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) were calculated separately for hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients. The moderating effect of the percentage of hypertensive patients at baseline was tested using meta-regression. Besides the ASCOT-LLA and ALLHAT-LLT, 12 trials enrolling 69,984 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, in these 12 trials, statin therapy decreased cardiac death by 24% (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval CI 0.71 to 0.82). There was no evidence of difference in RR estimates for hypertensive (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84) and nonhypertensive (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80) patients. Similarly, meta-regression showed that the efficacy of statins was not moderated by the percentage of hypertensive patients at baseline (Q estimate 1.51, p = 0.22). In conclusion, statin therapy effectively decreases CV morbidity and mortality to the same extent in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients.
Abstract Objectives The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index—Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) was developed to assess patients' kidney-cancer-related symptoms. The Rasch ...rating scale, a one-parameter logistic item response model, may enhance FKSI-DRS interpretation and validate its measurement properties. Methods We applied the Rasch model to FKSI-DRS data from a randomized phase 3 trial in which first-line sunitinib therapy showed superiority to interferon-alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Of 750 enrolled patients, 668 patients completed the questionnaire on cycle 1, day 28 and were evaluated in the current study. The nine FKSI-DRS items were analyzed to enhance interpretation of the summary score by using an item characteristic curve that related score to probability of reporting specific symptoms. Results The Rasch model fitted the FKSI-DRS well: 8 of 9 items had acceptable infit and outfit statistics (<1.5, >0.5); item difficulty spanned a wide range (−3.23 to 1.64 logits); and the five response categories performed adequately. The item characteristic curve offered enhanced interpretation of FKSI-DRS: For example, an FKSI-DRS score of 27 (mean baseline score for total sample) indicated a 47% chance of reporting “no” to “lack of energy,” although a two-point difference between sunitinib and interferon-alfa, averaged across all assessments (29 vs. 27), corresponded to sunitinib achieving a 28% increase (13% absolute difference) in the probability of reporting “no” to “lack of energy” (60% vs. 47%). Conclusions Data suggest that the FKSI-DRS is an adequate measure of symptom status in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The Rasch model supports its validation and enhances its interpretation.
Abstract Objective To compare the health status of fibromyalgia patients assessed by EuroQol (EQ-5D) with healthy controls and patients with chronic conditions, and to identify modifiable clinical ...factors associated with the EQ-5D. Study Design EQ-5D scores were calculated using US preference weights for patients with fibromyalgia from a published patient survey. Scores were compared with healthy controls and individuals with chronic conditions (cancer, diabetes, asthma, headache, hypertension, myocardial infarction, coronary atherosclerosis, congestive heart failure, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and spondylopathies) from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Demographic and clinical factors associated with the EQ-5D were identified using regression analyses. Results Adjusted for age and sex, the mean (±SD) EQ-5D score was 0.56 ± 0.18 among fibromyalgia patients; significantly lower, that is, worse ( P <.0001), than that of healthy controls (0.89 ± 0.46) and other chronic conditions ( P <.0001). Differences in scores between fibromyalgia patients and comparators were ≥.074, indicating clinical significance. Patient self-reported fibromyalgia symptom severity was a significant factor associated with the EQ-5D. Compared with “very severe” patients, those with “moderate,” “mild,” and “very mild” symptoms had significantly ( P <.05) higher mean EQ-5D scores. Major depressive disorder also was a significant factor, but anxiety, cognitive dysfunction, and chronic fatigue syndrome were not; neither were fibromyalgia duration and number of tender points. Conclusions EQ-5D scores in fibromyalgia patients were significantly lower than healthy controls and individuals with other chronic conditions. Self-reported symptom severity was significantly associated with the EQ-5D. A substantial health burden for fibromyalgia has been highlighted and results suggest that effective symptom management is necessary to improve the health status of fibromyalgia patients.
Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy ...of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals.
To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR).
A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes.
The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable).
Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naïve to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX–XXX)
PDF
