Methods for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes using individual patient data: a case study in acupuncture for chronic pain

Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Traditional teaching has been to place patients in the left lateral decubitus starting position for colonoscopies. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared left lateral decubitus starting position to other approaches. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare different starting positions for colonoscopies and their effect on cecal intubation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing at least two different starting positions for adults undergoing colonoscopy. The main outcome was cecal intubation time. Meta-analysis used an inverse variance random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Tool for RCTs 2.0.

RESULTS

After screening 1523 citations, 14 RCTs were included. Four studies compared left lateral decubitus to right lateral decubitus, four studies compared left lateral decubitus to left lateral tilt-down, three studies compared left lateral decubitus to prone, and three studies compared left lateral decubitus to supine. There were no statistically significant differences in cecal intubation time in seconds across all comparisons: left lateral decubitus vs. right lateral decubitus (MD 14.9, 95% CI - 111.8 to 141.6, p = 0.82, I2 = 85%); left lateral decubitus vs. left lateral tilt-down (MD - 31.3, 95% CI - 70.8 to 8.3, p = 0.12, I2 = 82%); left lateral decubitus vs. prone (MD 17.2, 95% CI - 174.9 to 209.4, p = 0.86, I2 = 94%); left lateral decubitus vs. supine (MD - 149.9, 95% CI - 443.6 to 143.9, p = 0.32, I2 = 89%).

CONCLUSION

The starting position for colonoscopies likely does not influence cecal intubation time. This study was limited by heterogeneity.

Digital interventions in mental health: evidence syntheses and economic modelling

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations provide evidence on whether or not digital interventions offer value for money, based on their costs and outcomes relative to the costs and outcomes of alternatives.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Evaluate and summarise published economic studies about digital interventions across different technologies, therapies, comparators and mental health conditions; (2) synthesise clinical evidence about digital interventions for an exemplar mental health condition; (3) construct an economic model for the same exemplar mental health condition using the previously synthesised clinical evidence; and (4) consult with stakeholders about how they understand and assess the value of digital interventions.

METHODS

We completed four work packages: (1) a systematic review and quality assessment of economic studies about digital interventions; (2) a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; (3) an economic model and value-of-information analysis on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; and (4) a series of knowledge exchange face-to-face and digital seminars with stakeholders.

RESULTS

In work package 1, we reviewed 76 economic evaluations: 11 economic models and 65 within-trial analyses. Although the results of the studies are not directly comparable because they used different methods, the overall picture suggests that digital interventions are likely to be cost-effective, compared with no intervention and non-therapeutic controls, whereas the value of digital interventions compared with face-to-face therapy or printed manuals is unclear. In work package 2, we carried out two network meta-analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials of digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder with a total of 2350 participants. The results were used to inform our economic model, but when considered on their own they were inconclusive because of the very wide confidence intervals. In work package 3, our decision-analytic model found that digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder were associated with lower net monetary benefit than medication and face-to-face therapy, but greater net monetary benefit than non-therapeutic controls and no intervention. Value for money was driven by clinical outcomes rather than by intervention costs, and a value-of-information analysis suggested that uncertainty in the treatment effect had the greatest value (£12.9B). In work package 4, stakeholders identified several areas of benefits and costs of digital interventions that are important to them, including safety, sustainability and reducing waiting times. Four factors may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing patient choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'.

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial uncertainty around effect estimates of digital interventions compared with alternatives. This uncertainty was driven by the small number of studies informing most comparisons, the small samples in some of these studies and the studies' high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital interventions may offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or 'doing something non-therapeutic' (e.g. monitoring or having a general discussion), but their added value compared with medication, face-to-face therapy and printed manuals is uncertain. Clinical outcomes rather than intervention costs drive 'value for money'.

FUTURE WORK

There is a need to develop digital interventions that are more effective, rather than just cheaper, than their alternatives.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105837.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Progress and challenges of network meta-analysis

In the past years, network meta-analysis (NMA) has been widely used among clinicians, guideline makers, and health technology assessment agencies and has played an important role in clinical decision-making and guideline development. To inform further development of NMAs, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to assess the current status of published NMA methodological studies, summarized the methodological progress of seven types of NMAs, and discussed the current challenges of NMAs.

Critical Appraisal of Published Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-Analyses of Competing Interventions for Multiple Myeloma

OBJECTIVES

In the field of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), between-trial or indirect comparisons are required to estimate relative treatment effects between competing interventions based on the available evidence. Two approaches are frequently used in RRMM: network meta-analysis (NMA) and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the relevance and credibility of published NMA and unanchored MAIC studies aiming to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatment options for RRMM.

METHODS

Twelve relevant studies were identified in the published literature (n = 7) and from health technology assessment agencies (n = 5). Data from trials were extracted to identify between-trial differences that may have biased results. Credibility of the performed analyses and relevance of the research questions were critically appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist and feedback based on consultations with clinical experts.

RESULTS

The identified studies concerned NMAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 7), unanchored MAICs (n = 4), or both types of analyses (n = 1). According to clinical expert consultation, the majority of the identified NMAs did not consider differences in prior therapies or treatment duration across the RCTs included in the analyses, thereby compromising the relevance.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results and feedback from clinicians, the majority of NMAs did not consider prior treatment history or treatment duration, which resulted in nonrelevant comparisons. Furthermore, it may have compromised the credibility of the estimates owing to differences in effect-modifiers between the different trials. Pairwise comparisons by means of unanchored MAICs require clear justification given the reliance on non-randomized comparisons.

Overview of Treatment Guidelines and Clinical Practical Guidelines That Recommend the Use of Acupuncture: A Bibliometric Analysis

INTRODUCTION

As positive evidence emerges for the use of an intervention to treat a health problem, the intervention gradually becomes incorporated into treatment guidelines (TGs) or clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that are related to that health problem. To assess whether this general hypothesis can apply to acupuncture, 96 health problems were identified for which positive conclusions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture have been made and then searched for TGs or CPGs that have recommended the use of acupuncture.

METHODS

Through August 31, 2017, searches were performed in relevant medical databases and Google using "treatment guideline," "clinical practice guideline," and the names of the 96 medical conditions as search terms. A "snow-balling" search approach was adopted. All positive recommendations were added into the registry.

RESULTS

A total of 1311 publications were found that recommended using acupuncture published between 1991 and 2017. The number per year reached 50 in 2005 and 100 in 2009. In addition, 2189 positive recommendations were found for the use of acupuncture. Of these, 1486 were related to 107 pain indications and 703 were related to 97 nonpain indications. These recommendations were made by a wide range of groups, such as government health institutions, national guideline, and medical specialty groups. The recommendations came from around the world but were especially abundant in North America, Europe, and Australasia.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Considerably more recommendations were found for the use of acupuncture than are known within the acupuncture or medical communities. A trend by year was also found; a rise in the number of positive statements about acupuncture was typically followed by a rise in the number of recommendations of acupuncture. Thus, the recommendations followed the emergent evidence for acupuncture. Better implementation plans need to be developed for the CPG/TG recommendations about acupuncture to be more effective/efficient.

Acupuncture for chronic pain: an update and critical overview

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acupuncture is now recommended for several chronic pain conditions. Despite supportive evidence of its effectiveness, this ancient approach is often misunderstood, and may still be underused in mainstream practice. A critical review on its effectiveness and practice integration, and mechanisms of action is essential to the medical community that is continuing to seek nonopioid therapies for chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mounting evidence supports the effectiveness of acupuncture to treat chronic low back, neck, shoulder, and knee pain, as well as headaches. Additional data are emerging that support the use of acupuncture as an adjunct or alternative to opioids, and in perioperative settings. Findings related to its mechanisms of action include transient receptor potential cation channel vanilloid 1 activation in the periphery, microglial suppression in the cerebral cortex and spinal cord, and regulation of cytokines and other key inflammatory factors in the spinal cord. Incremental integration of acupuncture into pain medicine practices and training programmes continues to grow.

SUMMARY

Acupuncture is effective, safe, and cost-effective for treating several chronic pain conditions when performed by well-trained healthcare professionals. Further studies on its use as an adjunct or alternative to opioids, and in perioperative settings are needed.

Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples

Organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence require the synthesis of evidence from existing studies to inform their decisions—for example, about the best available treatments with respect to multiple efficacy and safety outcomes. However, relevant studies may not provide direct evidence about all the treatments or outcomes of interest. Multivariate and network meta-analysis methods provide a framework to address this, using correlated or indirect evidence from such studies alongside any direct evidence. In this article, the authors describe the key concepts and assumptions of these methods, outline how correlated and indirect evidence arises, and illustrate the contribution of such evidence in real clinical examples involving multiple outcomes and multiple treatments

Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

There is limited information on the costs and benefits of alternative adjunct non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis and little guidance on which should be prioritised for commissioning within the NHS. This study estimates the costs and benefits of acupuncture, braces, heat treatment, insoles, interferential therapy, laser/light therapy, manual therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, pulsed electrical stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnets and transcutaneous electrical nerve Stimulation (TENS), based on all relevant data, to facilitate a more complete assessment of value.

METHODS

Data from 88 randomised controlled trials including 7,507 patients were obtained from a systematic review. The studies reported a wide range of outcomes. These were converted into EQ-5D index values using prediction models, and synthesised using network meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted including firstly all trials and secondly only trials with low risk of selection bias. Resource use was estimated from trials, expert opinion and the literature. A decision analytic model synthesised all evidence to assess interventions over a typical treatment period (constant benefit over eight weeks or linear increase in effect over weeks zero to eight and dissipation over weeks eight to 16).

RESULTS

When all trials are considered, TENS is cost-effective at thresholds of £20-30,000 per QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,690 per QALY vs. usual care. When trials with a low risk of selection bias are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,502 per QALY vs. TENS. The results of the analysis were sensitive to varying the intensity, with which interventions were delivered, and the magnitude and duration of intervention effects on EQ-5D.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the £20,000 per QALY NICE threshold results in TENS being cost-effective if all trials are considered. If only higher quality trials are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective at this threshold, and thresholds down to £14,000 per QALY.