Combining Correlated Outcomes and Surrogate Endpoints in a Network Meta-Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Treatments

Conduct and reporting of multivariate network meta-analyses: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Combining multivariate and network meta-analysis methods simultaneously in a multivariate network meta-analysis (MVNMA) provides the methodological framework to analyze the largest amount of evidence relevant to decision-makers (i.e., from indirect evidence and correlated outcomes). The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize the characteristics of MVNMAs published in the health sciences literature and map the methodological guidance available for MVNMA.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to 28 August 2023, along with citations of included studies, for quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and articles addressing MVNMA methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies. Collected data included bibliographic, methodological, and analytical characteristics of included studies. We reported results as total numbers, frequencies, and percentages for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables that were not normally distributed.

RESULTS

After screening 1,075 titles and abstracts, and 112 full texts, we included 38 unique studies, of which, 10 were quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and 28 were articles addressing MVNMA methods. Among the 10 MVNMAs, the first was published in 2013, four used studies identified from already published systematic reviews, and eight addressed pharmacological interventions, which were the most common interventions. They evaluated interventions for metastatic melanoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, oral hygiene, disruptive behavior disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, narcolepsy, type 2 diabetes, and overactive bladder syndrome. Five MVNMAs analyzed two outcomes simultaneously, and four MVNMAs analyzed three outcomes simultaneously. Among the articles addressing MVNMA methods, the first was published in 2007 and the majority provided methodological frameworks for conducting MVNMAs (26/28, 93%). One study proposed criteria to standardize reporting of MVNMAs and two proposed items relevant to the quality assessment of MVNMAs. Study authors used data from 18 different illnesses to provide illustrative examples within their methodological guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of MVNMA in the health sciences literature is uncommon. Many methodological frameworks are published; however, standardization and specific criteria to guide reporting and quality assessment are lacking. This overview of the current landscape may help inform future conduct of MVNMAs and research on MVNMA methods.

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Anti-inflammatory Agents on Major Depressive Disorder: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: With the growing importance of research about the association between neuroinflammation and major depressive disorder (MDD), anti-inflammatory agents have been used as a new antidepressant therapy in clinical practice. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) with up-to-date evidence to compare different anti-inflammatory agents for improving the treatment of MDD patients.

Methods: To identify eligible randomized clinical trials, four databases (i.e, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception date to May 31, 2020. Anti-inflammatory agents were defined as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, cytokine inhibitors, statins, pioglitazone, minocycline, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and omega-3 fatty acid (Omega-3 FA). The main outcomes of this NMA were efficacy, acceptability and remission rate. Risk ratio (RR) was adopted for dichotomous outcomes, and the confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. STATA 14.0 and R 3.6.3 were used to conduct the NMA. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182531).

Results: A total of 39 studies, involving 2871 participants, were included in quantitative data synthesis. For efficacy, NSAIDs (RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.26-0.73) and pioglitazone (RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.20-0.84) were more favorable than placebo. With respect to acceptability, NSAIDs were more acceptable than placebo (RR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.77-0.99) and minocycline (RR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.03-1.49). For remission, NSAIDs were more superior than placebo (RR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.27-0.79) and Omega-3 FA (RR=2.01, 95%CI: 1.09-3.90), while NACs were more favorable than placebo (RR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.13-0.99). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, corticosteroids (0.86) were the best anti-inflammatory agent for MDD patients in terms of efficacy, but the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents were not statistically significant. As for acceptability, NSAIDs (0.81) were much better than other anti-inflammatory agents. Besides, NAC (0.80) was the best anti-inflammatory agent in the terms of remission.

Conclusions: In summary, we found that corticosteroids were more superior than other agents in terms of efficacy according to the SUCRA value. However, this result must be interpreted with caution because the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents did not reach statistical significance. NSAIDs were recommended for acceptability and NAC for remission rate.

Cost-minimization analysis of biweekly dosing of cetuximab and FOLFIRI compared with panitumumab and FOLFOX for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States

AIM

To compare the cost of biweekly regimens of first-line (1L) treatments of cetuximab-folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) versus panitumumab-folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in patients with Kirsten's rat sarcoma wild type (KRAS WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the United States, across varying weights and body surface areas (BSAs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to estimate per-patient cost differences of cetuximab-FOLFIRI versus panitumumab-FOLFOX. The CMA estimated the costs of RAS testing, premedication, drug acquisition, treating infusion reactions (IRs), supportive therapy, and biweekly administration of chemotherapy, cetuximab (500 mg/m²), and panitumumab (6 mg/kg) over 43 weeks (median progression-free survival). To calculate dose and cost, weight and height data were gathered from an electronic health record-derived de-identified database (n = 7,669; January 2013-October 2020). Base case analysis utilized mean weight/BSA of the overall cohort (82.04 kg/1.92 m²), and alternate scenarios were based on 88.18 kg/2.03 m² (men, n = 4,477) and 73.43 kg/1.76 m² (women, n = 3,192).

RESULTS

For the base case, total treatment costs were $167,853 for cetuximab-FOLFIRI and $168,254 for panitumumab-FOLFOX; cost savings per patient receiving cetuximab-FOLFIRI was $400. Cost savings in alternate scenarios (men, $15,138; women, $15,004) resulted from lower drug acquisition costs for cetuximab (men, $14,833; women $14,854) and administration cost ($440) versus panitumumab. Cost savings of cetuximab-FOLFIRI in treating IR ($353) were similar across all scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

With no head-to-head clinical trial data in the 1L setting, assumptions of similarity in efficacy and safety of cetuximab versus panitumumab were based on published network meta-analysis and the ASPECCT trial. This model did not consider a lifetime horizon. Costs of managing all adverse events (except IR) were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Biweekly cetuximab-FOLFIRI offers cost savings compared with panitumumab-FOLFOX for 1L therapy of patients with KRAS WT mCRC in the United States. These cost differences were observed for the overall population and across different BSA and weights for men and women.