Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
Tóm tắt
Mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are increasingly important in the assessment of the benefit–risk profile of pharmaceutical treatments for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Interpretation of MTCs requires a clear understanding of the methods of analysis and population studied. The objectives of this work were to compare MTCs of pharmaceutical treatments for RRMS, including a detailed description of differences in populations, treatments assessed, methods used and findings; and to discuss key considerations when conducting an MTC. Fourteen databases were searched until July 2019 to identify MTCs (published during or after 2010) in adults (at least 18 years of age) with RRMS or rapidly evolving severe RRMS treated with any form of pharmaceutical treatment. No language restriction was imposed. Twenty-seven MTCs assessing 21 treatments were identified. Comparison highlighted many differences in conduct and reporting between MTCs relating to the patient populations or treatments included, duration of follow-up and outcomes of interest measured. The lack of similarity between the MTCs leads to questions about variability in the robustness of analyses and makes comparisons between studies challenging. Given the importance of MTCs for healthcare decision-making, it is imperative that reporting of methods, results and assumptions is clear and transparent to allow accurate interpretation of findings. For MTCs to be relevant, the choice of outcome measures should reflect clinical practice. Combination of treatments or of outcomes measured at different points of time should be avoided, as should imputation without justification. Furthermore, all approved treatment options should be included and updates of MTCs should be conducted when data for new treatments are published.
Tài liệu tham khảo
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. EMA/CHMP/771815/2011, Rev. 2. March 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/03/WC500185161.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
Claflin SB, Broadley S, Taylor BV. The effect of disease modifying therapies on disability progression in multiple sclerosis: a systematic overview of meta-analyses. Front Neurol. 2019;9:1–25.
Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.
Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. (updated March 2011) Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 7 Aug 2014.
Laws A, Kendall R, Hawkins N. A comparison of national guidelines for network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2014;17(5):642–54.
Coleman CI, Phung OJ, Cappelleri JC, et al. Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.
Giovannoni G, Lang S, Wolff R, et al. A systematic review and mixed treatment comparison of pharmaceutical interventions for multiple sclerosis. Neurol Ther. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-020-00212-5.
Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol. 1983;13(3):227–31.
McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2001;50(1):121–7.
Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald criteria”. Ann Neurol. 2005;58(6):840–6.
Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol. 2011;69(2):292–302.
Zhang Y, Salter A, Wallström E, Cutter G, Stüve O. Evolution of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019;12:1756286419826547.
Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract. 2017;15(1):943.
Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny A-M, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;338:b1147.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.
Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. 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. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–28.
Aggarwal S, Kumar S, Topalogu H. Comparison of network meta-analysis and traditional meta-analysis for prevention of relapses in multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A660.
Filippini G, Del Giovane C, Vacchi L, et al. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD008933.
McCool R, Wilson K, Arber M, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing ocrelizumab with other treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;29:55–61.
Hamidi V, Couto E, Ringerike T, Klemp M. A multiple treatment comparison of eleven disease-modifying drugs used for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(2):88–105.
Hadjigeorgiou GM, Doxani C, Miligkos M, et al. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for comparing the effectiveness and safety profile of treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;38(6):433–9.
Zintzaras E, Doxani C, Mprotsis T, Schmid CH, Hadjigeorgiou GM. Network analysis of randomized controlled trials in multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2012;34(4):857–69.
Huisman E, Papadimitropoulou K, Jarrett J, et al. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and rapidly evolving severe multiple sclerosis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e013430.
Guo J, Das Gupta R, Fahrbach K, Wissinger E, Cox F. A network meta-analysis comparing alemtuzumab to natalizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with rapidly evolving severe disease. Mult Scl. 2016;22(3 Suppl):772.
Tolley K, Hutchinson M, You X, et al. A network meta-analysis of efficacy and evaluation of safety of subcutaneous pegylated interferon beta-1a versus other injectable therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127960.
Hutchinson M, Fox RJ, Havrdova E, et al. Efficacy and safety of BG-12 (dimethyl fumarate) and other disease-modifying therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(4):613–27.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. CADTH. 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK169748/. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
Martina R, Jenkins D, Bujkiewicz S, Dequen P, Abrams K, GetReal Workpackage 1. The inclusion of real world evidence in clinical development planning. Trials. 2018;19(1):468.
Salas PAO, Parra CO, Florez CEP, Goez LM, Velez-van-Meerbeke A, Rodriguez JH. Safety liver profile of teriflunomide versus interferon β in multiple sclerosis: systematic review and indirect comparison meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;26:192–200.
Sultanov M, Almadiyeva A, Absattarova K, Semenova Y. Natalizumab versus glatiramer acetate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2018;21(Suppl 3):S331.
Fogarty E, Schmitz S, Tubridy N, Walsh C, Barry M. Comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies for patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;9:23–30.
Zagmutt FJ, Carroll CA. Meta-analysis of adverse events in recent randomized clinical trials for dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. 2015;125(11):798–807.
Cutter G, Fahrbach K, Huelin R, Wissinger E, Kitio-Dschassi B, Dive-Pouletty C. Relative efficacy of teriflunomide 14 mg in relapsing MS: a mixed-treatment comparison. Mult Scler. 2013;19(10):1413.
Del Santo F, Maratea D, Fadda V, Trippoli S, Messori A. Treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: summarising current information by network meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;68(4):441–8.
Tyas D, Roskell N, Zimovetz E, Rycroft C, Eckert B. Annualized relapse rate of first-line treatments for multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis, including indirect comparisons versus fingolimod. Neurology. 2012;78(1 Suppl).
Xu X, Chi S, Wang Q, et al. Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody therapies for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;25:322–8.
Li H, Hu F, Zhang Y, Li K. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09395-w.
Lucchetta RC, Tonin FS, Borba HHL, et al. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(9):813–26.
Lucchetta RC, Tonin FS, Borba HHL, et al. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2018;21(Suppl 1):S203–4.
Siddiqui MK, Khurana IS, Budhia S, Hettle R, Harty G, Wong SL. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(8):1361–71.
Institute for Clinical Economic Review. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing remitting and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: effectiveness and value final evidence report. ICER. 2017. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CTAF_MS_Final_Report_030617.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
Melendez-Torres GJ, Auguste P, Armoiry X, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate for treating multiple sclerosis: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(52):1–352.
Couto E, Hamidi V, Ringerike T, Odgaard-Jensen J, Harboe I, Klemp M. Medicines used for multiple sclerosis—a health technology assessment. Oslo: Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH); 2016.
Tramacere I, Del Giovane C, Salanti G, D’Amico R, Filippini G. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD011381.
Sormani MP. The Will Rogers phenomenon: the effect of different diagnostic criteria. J Neurol Sci. 2009;287(1 Suppl):S46–9.
O’Connor P, Filippi M, Arnason B, et al. 250 microg or 500 microg interferon beta-1b versus 20 mg glatiramer acetate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(10):889–97.
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). General methods: version 5.0. IQWiG. 2016. https://www.iqwig.de/en/methods/methods-paper.3020.html. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
Kalincik T, Cutter G, Spelman T, et al. Defining reliable disability outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 11):3287–98.
Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.
Suthar A, Lawn S, del Amo J, et al. Antiretroviral therapy for prevention of tuberculosis in adults with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2012;9(7):e1001270.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination B. Systematic reviews. CRDs guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. CRD. 2009. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–37.
Haute Authorite de Sante. Indirect comparisons: methods and validity. HAS. 2009. https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-02/summary_report__indirect_comparisons_methods_and_validity_january_2011_2.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc). 2009;172(1):137–59.
Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):157–73.