Synthesizing cross-design evidence and cross-format data using network meta-regression.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Wiley Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101543738 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1759-2887 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17592879 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Res Synth Methods Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: : Chichester : Wiley Blackwell
      Original Publication: Malden, MA : John Wiley & Sons, 2010-
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      In network meta-analysis (NMA), we synthesize all relevant evidence about health outcomes with competing treatments. The evidence may come from randomized clinical trials (RCT) or non-randomized studies (NRS) as individual participant data (IPD) or as aggregate data (AD). We present a suite of Bayesian NMA and network meta-regression (NMR) models allowing for cross-design and cross-format synthesis. The models integrate a three-level hierarchical model for synthesizing IPD and AD into four approaches. The four approaches account for differences in the design and risk of bias (RoB) in the RCT and NRS evidence. These four approaches variously ignoring differences in RoB, using NRS to construct penalized treatment effect priors and bias-adjustment models that control the contribution of information from high RoB studies in two different ways. We illustrate the methods in a network of three pharmacological interventions and placebo for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The estimated relative treatment effects do not change much when we accounted for differences in design and RoB. Conducting network meta-regression showed that intervention efficacy decreases with increasing participant age. We also re-analysed a network of 431 RCT comparing 21 antidepressants, and we did not observe material changes in intervention efficacy when adjusting for studies' high RoB. We re-analysed both case studies accounting for different study RoB. In summary, the described suite of NMA/NMR models enables the inclusion of all relevant evidence while incorporating information on the within-study bias in both observational and experimental data and enabling estimation of individualized treatment effects through the inclusion of participant characteristics.
      (© 2023 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
    • References:
      Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897-900.
      Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105-3124.
      Efthimiou O, Debray TPA, van Valkenhoef G, et al. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(3):236-263.
      Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
      Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstien HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2009. doi:10.1002/9780470743386.ch1.
      Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Wolters Kluwer Health; 2008.
      Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. PharmacoEconomics. 2010;28(10):935-945.
      Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Benedict A. Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(6):537-549.
      Phillippo DM, Dias S, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: a simulation study. Stat Med. 2020;39(30):4885-4911.
      Remiro-Azócar A, Heath A, Baio G. Methods for population adjustment with limited access to individual patient data: a review and simulation study. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(6):750-775.
      Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):177-190.
      Phillippo DM, Dias S, Ades AE, et al. Multilevel network meta-regression for population-adjusted treatment comparisons. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2020;183(3):1189-1210.
      Saramago P, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Manca A. Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data. Stat Med. 2012;31(28):3516-3536.
      Donegan S, Williamson P, D'Alessandro U, Garner P, Smith CT. Combining individual patient data and aggregate data in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: individual patient data may be beneficial if only for a subset of trials. Stat Med. 2013;32(6):914-930.
      Thom HHZ, Capkun G, Cerulli A, Nixon RM, Howard LS. Network meta-analysis combining individual patient and aggregate data from a mixture of study designs with an application to pulmonary arterial hypertension. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;12(15):34.
      Bell H, Wailoo A, Hernandez Alava M, et al. The Use of Real World Data for the Estimation of Treatment Effects in NICE Decision Making. NICE Decision Support Unit; 2016.
      Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Framework for FDA's real-world evidence program. FDA; 2018.
      Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:MR000034.
      Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408-412.
      Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309(22):1358-1361.
      Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601-605.
      Schmitz S, Adams R, Walsh C. Incorporating data from various trial designs into a mixed treatment comparison model. Stat Med. 2013;32(17):2935-2949.
      Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Debray TPA, et al. Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2017;36(8):1210-1226.
      Dias S, Welton NJ, Marinho VCC, Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE. Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc. 2010;173:613-629.
      Verde PE. A bias-corrected meta-analysis model for combining, studies of different types and quality. Biom J. 2021;63(2):406-422.
      Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;18(343):d5928.
      Tramacere IDGC, Salanti GDR, Filippini G. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015:CD011381. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011381.
      Giovannoni G, Lang S, Wolff R, et al. A systematic review and mixed treatment comparison of pharmaceutical interventions for multiple sclerosis. Neurol Ther. 2020;9(2):359-374.
      Polman CH, O'Connor PW, Havrdova E, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(9):899-910.
      Fox RJ, Miller DH, Phillips JT, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1087-1097.
      Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1098-1107.
      Bornstein MB, Miller A, Slagle S, et al. A pilot trial of cop 1 in exacerbating-remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(7):408-414.
      Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a phase III multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 1995. Neurology. 1995;57(12 Suppl 5):S16-S24.
      Disanto G, Benkert P, Lorscheider J, et al. The Swiss multiple sclerosis cohort-study (SMSC): a prospective Swiss wide investigation of key phases in disease evolution and new treatment options. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152347.
      Suissa S. Immortal time bias in Pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(4):492-499.
      Lévesque LE, Hanley JA, Kezouh A, Suissa S. Problem of immortal time bias in cohort studies: example using statins for preventing progression of diabetes. BMJ. 2010;12(340):b5087.
      Goldenberg MM. Multiple sclerosis review. P T. 2012;37(3):175-184.
      Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10128):1357-1366.
      Saramago P, Chuang LH, Soares MO. Network meta-analysis of (individual patient) time to event data alongside (aggregate) count data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;10(14):105.
      Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, et al. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med. 2008;27(11):1870-1893.
      Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GCS, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):21-47.
      Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Stat Med. 2003;22(23):3687-3709.
      Plummer M. JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical Models Using Gibbs Sampling. 2003.
      RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, Inc [Internet]. 2019; Available from: http://www.rstudio.com/.
      Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodology. 2002;64(4):583-639.
      Chalkou K, Steyerberg E, Egger M, Manca A, Pellegrini F, Salanti G. A two-stage prediction model for heterogeneous effects of treatments. Stat Med. 2021;40(20):4362-4375.
      Pellegrini F, Copetti M, Bovis F, et al. A proof-of-concept application of a novel scoring approach for personalized medicine in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2019;30:1064-1073.
      Savović J, Turner RM, Mawdsley D, et al. Association between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in Cochrane reviews: the ROBES meta-epidemiologic study. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(5):1113-1122.
      Petropoulou M, Salanti G, Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Moustaki I, Mavridis D. A forward search algorithm for detecting extreme study effects in network meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2021;40(25):5642-5656.
      Noma H, Gosho M, Ishii R, Oba K, Furukawa TA. Outlier detection and influence diagnostics in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2020 Nov;11(6):891-902.
      Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):112-125.
      Lee KJ, Thompson SG. Flexible parametric models for random-effects distributions. Stat Med. 2008;27(3):418-434.
      Lunn D, Jackson C, Best N, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter D. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis [Internet]. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2012. doi:10.1201/b13613.
      Efthimiou O, White IR. The dark side of the force: multiplicity issues in network meta-analysis and how to address them. Res Synth Methods. 2020 Jan;11(1):105-122.
      Sarri G, Patorno E, Yuan H, et al. Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making. BMJ. Evid Based Med. 2020;27(2):109-119.
      Jenkins DA, Hussein H, Martina R, Dequen-O'Byrne P, Abrams KR, Bujkiewicz S. Methods for the inclusion of real-world evidence in network meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):207.
      Harrell F. RCT Analyses With Covariate Adjustment. 2020. https://www.fharrell.com/post/covadj/#disqus_thread.
      Hauck WW, Anderson S, Marcus SM. Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials? Control Clin Trials. 1998;19(3):249-256.
      Robinson LD, Jewell NP. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models. Int Stat Rev. 1991;59(2):227-240.
      Steyerberg EW, Bossuyt PM, Lee KL. Clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction: should we adjust for baseline characteristics? Am Heart J. 2000;139(5):745-751.
      Zhang K, Arora P, Sati N, et al. Characteristics and methods of incorporating randomized and nonrandomized evidence in network meta-analyses: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:1-10.
    • Grant Information:
      The HTx project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement Nº 825162. This dissemination reflects only the author's view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: observational studies; randomized controlled trials; real-world evidence; risk of bias
    • Accession Number:
      0 (Antidepressive Agents)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20230110 Date Completed: 20230314 Latest Revision: 20230314
    • Publication Date:
      20240105
    • Accession Number:
      10.1002/jrsm.1619
    • Accession Number:
      36625736