Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1

Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA.
Value in Health (Impact Factor: 2.89). 06/2011; 14(4):417-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002
Source: PubMed

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.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the absence of head-to-head randomized trials, indirect comparisons of treatments across separate trials can be performed. However, these analyses may be biased by cross-trial differences in patient populations, sensitivity to modeling assumptions, and differences in the definitions of outcome measures. The objective of this study was to demonstrate how incorporating individual patient data (IPD) from trials of one treatment into indirect comparisons can address several limitations that arise in analyses based only on aggregate data.
    Value in Health 09/2012; 15(6):940–947. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.004 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of ustekinumab with that of other biological agents using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) among adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. DATA SOURCES We conducted a systematic search of the period January 31, 1992, to February 1, 2012, using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and STUDY SELECTION We included randomized controlled trials of biological agents compared with placebo or other biological agents using the PASI in patients who had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. DATA EXTRACTION Study data were extracted independently by 2 of us, with disagreement resolved by consensus. Data extracted included the size of the trial, follow-up period, age range of patients, disease duration, body surface area involvement, baseline PASI, PASI response, and previous treatment with biological agents. DATA SYNTHESIS A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed by fitting 3 regression models: a fixed-effects model, a random-effects model, and a random-effects model with meta-regression coefficients. The random-effects model achieved the best fit for these data. In pairwise comparisons, ustekinumab use was associated with statistically significantly higher odds for achieving a 75% reduction in the PASI compared with adalimumab use (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.01-3.54), alefacept use (OR, 10.38; CrI, 3.44-27.62), and etanercept use (OR, 2.07; 95% CrI, 1.42-3.06) but was associated with lower odds compared with infliximab use (OR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.14-0.82) . In the therapeutic class comparison, the interleukin-12/23 inhibitor had the highest odds for achieving a 75% reduction in the PASI compared with placebo (OR, 69.48; 95% CrI, 36.89-136.46), followed by tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (OR, 42.22; 95% CrI, 27.94-69.34) and the T-cell inhibitor (OR, 5.63; 95% CrI, 1.35-24.24). CONCLUSION For the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, ustekinumab may be more efficacious than adalimumab, etanercept, and alefacept but not infliximab.
    Archives of dermatology 10/2012; DOI:10.1001/2013.jamadermatol.238 · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the previous article (Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons-Part I, Credibility), we presented an approach to evaluating the credibility or methodologic rigor of network meta-analyses (NMA), an innovative approach to simultaneously addressing the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options for a given medical condition or disease state. In the second part of the Users' Guide for Surgeons, we discuss and demonstrate the application of criteria for determining the certainty in effect sizes and directions associated with a given treatment option through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 04/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11999-015-4287-9 · 2.88 Impact Factor