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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |