BRIDGING RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AND SINGLE-ARM TRIALS USING COMMENSURATE PRIORS IN ARM-BASED NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

Tipping point analysis for the between-arm correlation in an arm-based evidence synthesis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools in contemporary evidence-based medicine, synthesizing evidence from various sources to better inform clinical decision-making. However, the conclusions from different meta-analyses on the same topic can be discrepant, which has raised concerns about their reliability. One reason is that the result of a meta-analysis is sensitive to factors such as study inclusion/exclusion criteria and model assumptions. The arm-based meta-analysis model is growing in importance due to its advantage of including single-arm studies and historical controls with estimation efficiency and its flexibility in drawing conclusions with both marginal and conditional effect measures. Despite its benefits, the inference may heavily depend on the heterogeneity parameters that reflect design and model assumptions. This article aims to evaluate the robustness of meta-analyses using the arm-based model within a Bayesian framework. Specifically, we develop a tipping point analysis of the between-arm correlation parameter to assess the robustness of meta-analysis results. Additionally, we introduce some visualization tools to intuitively display its impact on meta-analysis results. We demonstrate the application of these tools in three real-world meta-analyses, one of which includes single-arm studies.

A review and comparison of arm-based versus contrast-based network meta-analysis for binary outcomes-Understanding their differences and limitations

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical procedure to simultaneously compare multiple interventions. Despite the added complexity of performing an NMA compared with the traditional pairwise meta-analysis, under proper assumptions the NMA can lead to more efficient estimates on the comparisons of interventions by combining and contrasting the direct and indirect evidence into a form of evidence that can be used to underpin treatment guidelines. Two broad classes of NMA methods are commonly used in practice: the contrast-based (CB-NMA) and the arm-based (AB-NMA) models. While CB-NMA only focuses on the relative effects by assuming fixed intercepts, the AB-NMA offers greater flexibility on the estimands, including both the absolute and relative effects by assuming random intercepts. A major criticism of the AB-NMA, on which we aim to elaborate in this paper, is that it does not retain randomization within trials, which may introduce bias in the estimated relative effects in some scenarios. This criticism was drawn under the implicit assumption that a given relative effect is transportable, in which case the data generating mechanism favors the inference based on CB-NMA, which models the relative effect. In this article, we aim to review, summarize, and elaborate on the underlying assumptions, similarities and differences, and also the advantages and disadvantages, between CB-NMA and AB-NMA methods. As indirect treatment comparison is susceptible to risk of bias no matter which approach is taken, it is important to consider both approaches in practice as complementary sensitivity analyses and to provide the totality of evidence from the data.

Bayesian adaptive design for covariate-adaptive historical control information borrowing

Interest in incorporating historical data in the clinical trial has increased with the rising cost of conducting clinical trials. The intervention arm for the current trial often requires prospective data to assess a novel treatment, and thus borrowing historical control data commensurate in distribution to current control data is motivated in order to increase the allocation ratio to the current intervention arm. Existing historical control borrowing adaptive designs adjust allocation ratios based on the commensurability assessed through study-level summary statistics of the response agnostic of the distributions of the trial subject characteristics in the current and historical trials. This can lead to distributional imbalance of the current trial subject characteristics across the treatment arms as well as between current control data and borrowed historical control data. Such covariate imbalance may threaten the internal validity of the current trial by introducing confounding factors that affect study endpoints. In this article, we propose a Bayesian design which borrows and updates the treatment allocation ratios both covariate-adaptively and commensurate to covariate dependently assessed similarity between the current and historical control data. We employ covariate-dependent discrepancy parameters which are allowed to grow with the sample size and propose a regularized local regression procedure for the estimation of the parameters. The proposed design also permits the current and the historical controls to be similar to varying degree, depending on the subject level characteristics. We evaluate the proposed design extensively under the settings derived from two placebo-controlled randomized trials on vertebral fracture risk in post-menopausal women.

Bayesian network meta-analysis methods for combining individual participant data and aggregate data from single arm trials and randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Increasingly in network meta-analysis (NMA), there is a need to incorporate non-randomised evidence to estimate relative treatment effects, and in particular in cases with limited randomised evidence, sometimes resulting in disconnected networks of treatments. When combining different sources of data, complex NMA methods are required to address issues associated with participant selection bias, incorporating single-arm trials (SATs), and synthesising a mixture of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data (AD). We develop NMA methods which synthesise data from SATs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using a mixture of IPD and AD, for a dichotomous outcome.

METHODS

We propose methods under both contrast-based (CB) and arm-based (AB) parametrisations, and extend the methods to allow for both within- and across-trial adjustments for covariate effects. To illustrate the methods, we use an applied example investigating the effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We applied the methods to a dataset obtained from a literature review consisting of 14 RCTs and an artificial dataset consisting of IPD from two SATs and AD from 12 RCTs, where the artificial dataset was created by removing the control arms from the only two trials assessing tocilizumab in the original dataset.

RESULTS

Without adjustment for covariates, the CB method with independent baseline response parameters (CBunadjInd) underestimated the effectiveness of tocilizumab when applied to the artificial dataset compared to the original dataset, albeit with significant overlap in posterior distributions for treatment effect parameters. The CB method with exchangeable baseline response parameters produced effectiveness estimates in agreement with CBunadjInd, when the predicted baseline response estimates were similar to the observed baseline response. After adjustment for RA duration, there was a reduction in across-trial heterogeneity in baseline response but little change in treatment effect estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest incorporating SATs in NMA may be useful in some situations where a treatment is disconnected from a network of comparator treatments, due to a lack of comparative evidence, to estimate relative treatment effects. The reliability of effect estimates based on data from SATs may depend on adjustment for covariate effects, although further research is required to understand this in more detail.