Pnd12 - Natalizumab Versus Glatiramer Acetate in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Sultanov, M.; Almadiyeva, A.; Absattarova, K.; Semenova, Yu

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.1979

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Six other studies used Bayesian methods but did not report further details [ 17 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 31 , 40 ] while Melendez-Torres 2017 [ 42 ] used frequentist methods without providing further details. Two studies [ 21 , 22 ] used the Bucher method for indirect comparison, and three studies [ 30 , 34 , 35 ] did not report the methods for MTC. Zagmutt [ 32 ] assessed adverse events (AEs) rather than relapses so was not included in this comparison.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results available from nine MTCs [ 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 36 , 40 ] were limited in applicability to decision-making as they reported the relative effects of one drug compared with other treatments in line with the objectives of the studies, and therefore did not present results for all treatments compared with placebo. Three studies [ 17 , 26 , 34 ] combined all of the IFNβ1a treatments into a single treatment class, while two [ 18 , 44 ] merged treatments in studies comparing the same agent at different doses but summing the number of events and the sample size.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of the MTCs did not report full details of their methodologies. In 12 of the studies [17,19,21,24,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] omissions were identified in reporting of inclusion screening, data extraction, quality assessment or discrepancy resolution. Table 1 details the inclusion criteria and methods used in the systematic review underlying the MTCs.…”

Section: Comparison Of Inclusion Criteria and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 Digital Features To view digital features for this article go to

show abstract