The Importance of Considering Differences in Study Design in Network Meta-analysis: An Application Using Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis

Background and Aims. Adaptive trial designs present a methodological challenge when performing network meta-analysis (NMA), as data from such adaptive trial designs differ from conventional parallel design randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to illustrate the importance of considering study...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical decision making 2017-11, Vol.37 (8), p.894-904
Hauptverfasser: Cameron, Chris, Ewara, Emmanuel, Wilson, Florence R., Varu, Abhishek, Dyrda, Peter, Hutton, Brian, Ingham, Michael
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 904
container_issue 8
container_start_page 894
container_title Medical decision making
container_volume 37
creator Cameron, Chris
Ewara, Emmanuel
Wilson, Florence R.
Varu, Abhishek
Dyrda, Peter
Hutton, Brian
Ingham, Michael
description Background and Aims. Adaptive trial designs present a methodological challenge when performing network meta-analysis (NMA), as data from such adaptive trial designs differ from conventional parallel design randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to illustrate the importance of considering study design when conducting an NMA. Methods. Three NMAs comparing anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs for ulcerative colitis were compared and the analyses replicated using Bayesian NMA. The NMA comprised 3 RCTs comparing 4 treatments (adalimumab 40 mg, golimumab 50 mg, golimumab 100 mg, infliximab 5 mg/kg) and placebo. We investigated the impact of incorporating differences in the study design among the 3 RCTs and presented 3 alternative methods on how to convert outcome data derived from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs. Results. Combining RCT results without considering variations in study design resulted in effect estimates that were biased against golimumab. In contrast, using the 3 alternative methods to convert outcome data from one form of adaptive design to a format more consistent with conventional parallel RCTs facilitated more transparent consideration of differences in study design. This approach is more likely to yield appropriate estimates of comparative efficacy when conducting an NMA, which includes treatments that use an alternative study design. Conclusions. RCTs based on adaptive study designs should not be combined with traditional parallel RCT designs in NMA. We have presented potential approaches to convert data from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs to facilitate transparent and less-biased comparisons.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0272989X17711933
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1910799443</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0272989X17711933</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1910799443</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-553cfc9369ccb18decc9f8a3f7a2fbaf9a400044b5f18f611a08fb33abf86bbc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc2O0zAUhS0EYsrAnhXykk3AjvNjs6vaGRhpgAWtNLvIca-Lh8QOvg6ob8Oj4qgDCyRWvlfnO0e2DyEvOXvDedu-ZWVbKqnu8sy5EuIRWfG6LotG8rvHZLXIxaJfkGeI94zxSsnqKbkoZVOWTIoV-bX7CvRmnEJM2hugwdJN8OgOEJ0_0q2zFiJkBanz9EuaDye6BXRHv-yfIP0M8Rv9CEkX2uvhhA7f0bWn62kanNHJBU_3uEStfXLFbh5DzDYTQybptTYp79s4H5HaPO0HAzG7fkC-xuCSw-fkidUDwouH85Lsr692mw_F7ef3N5v1bWFEq1JR18JYo0SjjOm5PIAxykotbKtL22urdMUYq6q-tlzahnPNpO2F0L2VTd8bcUlen3OnGL7PgKkbHRoYBu0hzNhxxVmrVFWJjLIzurwCI9huim7U8dRx1i29dP_2ki2vHtLnfoTDX8OfIjJQnAHUR-juwxzzb-L_A38DifGZDA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1910799443</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Importance of Considering Differences in Study Design in Network Meta-analysis: An Application Using Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><creator>Cameron, Chris ; Ewara, Emmanuel ; Wilson, Florence R. ; Varu, Abhishek ; Dyrda, Peter ; Hutton, Brian ; Ingham, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Chris ; Ewara, Emmanuel ; Wilson, Florence R. ; Varu, Abhishek ; Dyrda, Peter ; Hutton, Brian ; Ingham, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>Background and Aims. Adaptive trial designs present a methodological challenge when performing network meta-analysis (NMA), as data from such adaptive trial designs differ from conventional parallel design randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to illustrate the importance of considering study design when conducting an NMA. Methods. Three NMAs comparing anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs for ulcerative colitis were compared and the analyses replicated using Bayesian NMA. The NMA comprised 3 RCTs comparing 4 treatments (adalimumab 40 mg, golimumab 50 mg, golimumab 100 mg, infliximab 5 mg/kg) and placebo. We investigated the impact of incorporating differences in the study design among the 3 RCTs and presented 3 alternative methods on how to convert outcome data derived from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs. Results. Combining RCT results without considering variations in study design resulted in effect estimates that were biased against golimumab. In contrast, using the 3 alternative methods to convert outcome data from one form of adaptive design to a format more consistent with conventional parallel RCTs facilitated more transparent consideration of differences in study design. This approach is more likely to yield appropriate estimates of comparative efficacy when conducting an NMA, which includes treatments that use an alternative study design. Conclusions. RCTs based on adaptive study designs should not be combined with traditional parallel RCT designs in NMA. We have presented potential approaches to convert data from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs to facilitate transparent and less-biased comparisons.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-989X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-681X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17711933</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28622083</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Medical decision making, 2017-11, Vol.37 (8), p.894-904</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-553cfc9369ccb18decc9f8a3f7a2fbaf9a400044b5f18f611a08fb33abf86bbc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-553cfc9369ccb18decc9f8a3f7a2fbaf9a400044b5f18f611a08fb33abf86bbc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0272989X17711933$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17711933$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28622083$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewara, Emmanuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Florence R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varu, Abhishek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dyrda, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hutton, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingham, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>The Importance of Considering Differences in Study Design in Network Meta-analysis: An Application Using Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis</title><title>Medical decision making</title><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><description>Background and Aims. Adaptive trial designs present a methodological challenge when performing network meta-analysis (NMA), as data from such adaptive trial designs differ from conventional parallel design randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to illustrate the importance of considering study design when conducting an NMA. Methods. Three NMAs comparing anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs for ulcerative colitis were compared and the analyses replicated using Bayesian NMA. The NMA comprised 3 RCTs comparing 4 treatments (adalimumab 40 mg, golimumab 50 mg, golimumab 100 mg, infliximab 5 mg/kg) and placebo. We investigated the impact of incorporating differences in the study design among the 3 RCTs and presented 3 alternative methods on how to convert outcome data derived from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs. Results. Combining RCT results without considering variations in study design resulted in effect estimates that were biased against golimumab. In contrast, using the 3 alternative methods to convert outcome data from one form of adaptive design to a format more consistent with conventional parallel RCTs facilitated more transparent consideration of differences in study design. This approach is more likely to yield appropriate estimates of comparative efficacy when conducting an NMA, which includes treatments that use an alternative study design. Conclusions. RCTs based on adaptive study designs should not be combined with traditional parallel RCT designs in NMA. We have presented potential approaches to convert data from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs to facilitate transparent and less-biased comparisons.</description><issn>0272-989X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc2O0zAUhS0EYsrAnhXykk3AjvNjs6vaGRhpgAWtNLvIca-Lh8QOvg6ob8Oj4qgDCyRWvlfnO0e2DyEvOXvDedu-ZWVbKqnu8sy5EuIRWfG6LotG8rvHZLXIxaJfkGeI94zxSsnqKbkoZVOWTIoV-bX7CvRmnEJM2hugwdJN8OgOEJ0_0q2zFiJkBanz9EuaDye6BXRHv-yfIP0M8Rv9CEkX2uvhhA7f0bWn62kanNHJBU_3uEStfXLFbh5DzDYTQybptTYp79s4H5HaPO0HAzG7fkC-xuCSw-fkidUDwouH85Lsr692mw_F7ef3N5v1bWFEq1JR18JYo0SjjOm5PIAxykotbKtL22urdMUYq6q-tlzahnPNpO2F0L2VTd8bcUlen3OnGL7PgKkbHRoYBu0hzNhxxVmrVFWJjLIzurwCI9huim7U8dRx1i29dP_2ki2vHtLnfoTDX8OfIjJQnAHUR-juwxzzb-L_A38DifGZDA</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Cameron, Chris</creator><creator>Ewara, Emmanuel</creator><creator>Wilson, Florence R.</creator><creator>Varu, Abhishek</creator><creator>Dyrda, Peter</creator><creator>Hutton, Brian</creator><creator>Ingham, Michael</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>The Importance of Considering Differences in Study Design in Network Meta-analysis: An Application Using Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis</title><author>Cameron, Chris ; Ewara, Emmanuel ; Wilson, Florence R. ; Varu, Abhishek ; Dyrda, Peter ; Hutton, Brian ; Ingham, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-553cfc9369ccb18decc9f8a3f7a2fbaf9a400044b5f18f611a08fb33abf86bbc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewara, Emmanuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Florence R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varu, Abhishek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dyrda, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hutton, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ingham, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cameron, Chris</au><au>Ewara, Emmanuel</au><au>Wilson, Florence R.</au><au>Varu, Abhishek</au><au>Dyrda, Peter</au><au>Hutton, Brian</au><au>Ingham, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Importance of Considering Differences in Study Design in Network Meta-analysis: An Application Using Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis</atitle><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>894</spage><epage>904</epage><pages>894-904</pages><issn>0272-989X</issn><eissn>1552-681X</eissn><abstract>Background and Aims. Adaptive trial designs present a methodological challenge when performing network meta-analysis (NMA), as data from such adaptive trial designs differ from conventional parallel design randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to illustrate the importance of considering study design when conducting an NMA. Methods. Three NMAs comparing anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs for ulcerative colitis were compared and the analyses replicated using Bayesian NMA. The NMA comprised 3 RCTs comparing 4 treatments (adalimumab 40 mg, golimumab 50 mg, golimumab 100 mg, infliximab 5 mg/kg) and placebo. We investigated the impact of incorporating differences in the study design among the 3 RCTs and presented 3 alternative methods on how to convert outcome data derived from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs. Results. Combining RCT results without considering variations in study design resulted in effect estimates that were biased against golimumab. In contrast, using the 3 alternative methods to convert outcome data from one form of adaptive design to a format more consistent with conventional parallel RCTs facilitated more transparent consideration of differences in study design. This approach is more likely to yield appropriate estimates of comparative efficacy when conducting an NMA, which includes treatments that use an alternative study design. Conclusions. RCTs based on adaptive study designs should not be combined with traditional parallel RCT designs in NMA. We have presented potential approaches to convert data from one form of adaptive design to more conventional parallel RCTs to facilitate transparent and less-biased comparisons.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>28622083</pmid><doi>10.1177/0272989X17711933</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0272-989X
ispartof Medical decision making, 2017-11, Vol.37 (8), p.894-904
issn 0272-989X
1552-681X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1910799443
source Access via SAGE
title The Importance of Considering Differences in Study Design in Network Meta-analysis: An Application Using Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T07%3A50%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Importance%20of%20Considering%20Differences%20in%20Study%20Design%20in%20Network%20Meta-analysis:%20An%20Application%20Using%20Anti-Tumor%20Necrosis%20Factor%20Drugs%20for%20Ulcerative%20Colitis&rft.jtitle=Medical%20decision%20making&rft.au=Cameron,%20Chris&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=894&rft.epage=904&rft.pages=894-904&rft.issn=0272-989X&rft.eissn=1552-681X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0272989X17711933&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1910799443%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1910799443&rft_id=info:pmid/28622083&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0272989X17711933&rfr_iscdi=true