Cargando…

Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis

INTRODUCTION: 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 st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pia Sormani, Maria, Wolff, Robert, Lang, Shona, Duffy, Steven, Hyde, Robert, Kinter, Elizabeth, Wakeford, Craig, Giovannoni, Gavin, Kleijnen, Jos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7606374/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32978726
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4
_version_ 1783604470986309632
author Pia Sormani, Maria
Wolff, Robert
Lang, Shona
Duffy, Steven
Hyde, Robert
Kinter, Elizabeth
Wakeford, Craig
Giovannoni, Gavin
Kleijnen, Jos
author_facet Pia Sormani, Maria
Wolff, Robert
Lang, Shona
Duffy, Steven
Hyde, Robert
Kinter, Elizabeth
Wakeford, Craig
Giovannoni, Gavin
Kleijnen, Jos
author_sort Pia Sormani, Maria
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7606374
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76063742020-11-10 Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis Pia Sormani, Maria Wolff, Robert Lang, Shona Duffy, Steven Hyde, Robert Kinter, Elizabeth Wakeford, Craig Giovannoni, Gavin Kleijnen, Jos Neurol Ther Review INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2020-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7606374/ /pubmed/32978726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review
Pia Sormani, Maria
Wolff, Robert
Lang, Shona
Duffy, Steven
Hyde, Robert
Kinter, Elizabeth
Wakeford, Craig
Giovannoni, Gavin
Kleijnen, Jos
Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
title Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
title_full Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
title_fullStr Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
title_full_unstemmed Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
title_short Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
title_sort overview of differences and similarities of published mixed treatment comparisons on pharmaceutical interventions for multiple sclerosis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7606374/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32978726
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4
work_keys_str_mv AT piasormanimaria overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT wolffrobert overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT langshona overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT duffysteven overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT hyderobert overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT kinterelizabeth overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT wakefordcraig overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT giovannonigavin overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis
AT kleijnenjos overviewofdifferencesandsimilaritiesofpublishedmixedtreatmentcomparisonsonpharmaceuticalinterventionsformultiplesclerosis