Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: individual patient-level covariates versus aggregate trial-level covariates

被引:37
作者
Donegan, Sarah [1 ]
Williamson, Paula [1 ]
D'Alessandro, Umberto [2 ]
Smith, Catrin Tudur [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Biostat, Fac Hlth & Life Sci, Liverpool L69 3GS, Merseyside, England
[2] Inst Trop Med Prince Leopold, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium
关键词
mixed treatment comparison; multiple treatments meta-analysis; network meta-analysis; similarity; consistency; individual patient data; META-REGRESSION; NETWORK METAANALYSIS; ECOLOGICAL BIAS; HETEROGENEITY; EFFICACY; INCONSISTENCY;
D O I
10.1002/sim.5470
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis allows several treatments to be compared in a single analysis while utilising direct and indirect evidence. Treatment by covariate interactions can be included in MTC models to explore how the covariate modifies the treatment effects. If interactions exist, the assumptions underlying MTCs may be invalidated. For conventional pair-wise meta-analysis, important benefits regarding the investigation of such interactions, gained from using individual patient data (IPD) rather than aggregate data (AD), have been described. We aim to compare IPD MTC models including patient-level covariates with AD MTC models including study-level covariates. IPD and AD random-effects MTC models for dichotomous outcomes are specified. Three assumptions are made regarding the interactions (i.e. independent, exchangeable and common interactions). The models are applied to a dataset to compare four drugs for treating malaria (i.e. amodiaquine-artesunate, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAPQ), artemether-lumefantrine and chlorproguanil-dapsone plus artesunate) using the outcome unadjusted treatment success at day 28. The treatment effects and regression coefficients for interactions from the IPD models were more precise than those from AD models. Using IPD, assuming independent or exchangeable interactions, the regression coefficient for chlorproguanil-dapsone plus artesunate versus DHAPQ was statistically significant and assuming common interactions, the common coefficient was significant; whereas using AD, no coefficients were significant. Using IPD, DHAPQ was the best drug; whereas using AD, the best drug varied. Using AD models, there was no evidence that the consistency assumption was invalid; whereas, the assumption was questionable based on the IPD models. The AD analyses were misleading. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:3840 / 3857
页数:18
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Network Meta-Analysis with Competing Risk Outcomes [J].
Ades, A. E. ;
Mavranezouli, Ifigeneia ;
Dias, Sofia ;
Welton, Nicky J. ;
Whittington, Craig ;
Kendall, Tim .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2010, 13 (08) :976-983
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2016, NICE DSU technical support document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials
[3]  
[Anonymous], 4 NICE DSU
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1995, Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice
[6]   A Head-to-Head Comparison of Four Artemisinin-Based Combinations for Treating Uncomplicated Malaria in African Children: A Randomized Trial [J].
Atwine, Daniel ;
Balikagala, Betty ;
Bassat, Quique ;
Chalwe, Victor ;
D'Alessandro, Umberto ;
Dhorda, Mehul ;
Donegan, Sarah ;
Garner, Paul ;
Gonzalez, Raquel ;
Guiguemde, Robert Tinga ;
Hachizovu, Sebastian ;
Kajungu, Dan ;
Kamya, Moses ;
Karema, Corine ;
Kibuuka, Afizi ;
Kremsner, Peter G. ;
Lell, Bertrand ;
Machevo, Sonia ;
Menendez, Clara ;
Menten, Joris ;
Meremikwu, Martin ;
Mombo-Ngoma, Ghyslain ;
Mudangha, Fred ;
Mulenga, Modest ;
Munyaneza, Tharcisse ;
Nabasumba, Carolyn ;
Nambozi, Michael ;
Odey, Friday ;
Okello, Samson ;
Oringanje, Chioma ;
Oyo-Ita, Angela ;
Piola, Patrice ;
Ravinetto, Raffaella ;
Tinto, Halidou ;
Rouamba, Noel ;
Strecker, Fabian ;
Talisuna, Ambrose O. ;
Umulisa, Noella ;
Uwimana, Aline ;
Valea, Innocent ;
Van Geertruyden, Jean Pierre ;
van Loen, Harry ;
Williamson, Paula ;
Yeka, Adoke .
PLOS MEDICINE, 2011, 8 (11)
[7]   Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head [J].
Berlin, JA ;
Santanna, J ;
Schmid, CH ;
Szczech, LA ;
Feldman, HI .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (03) :371-387
[8]   The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Bucher, HC ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Griffith, LE ;
Walter, SD .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :683-691
[9]  
Clarke M J, 1997, J Eval Clin Pract, V3, P207, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00005.x
[10]   Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation [J].
Cooper, Nicola J. ;
Sutton, Alex J. ;
Morris, Danielle ;
Ades, A. E. ;
Welton, Nicky J. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (14) :1861-1881