Unanchored Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods for Time-to-Event Outcomes Using Inverse Odds Weighting, Regression Adjustment, and Doubly Robust Methods With Either Individual Patient or Aggregate Data

OBJECTIVES

Several methods for unanchored population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) are available. Exploring alternative adjustment methods, depending on the available individual patient data (IPD) and the aggregate data (AD) in the external study, may help minimize bias in unanchored indirect comparisons. However, methods for time-to-event outcomes are not well understood. This study provides an overview and comparison of methods using a case study to increase familiarity. A recent method is applied to marginalize conditional hazard ratios, which allows for the comparisons of methods, and a doubly robust method is proposed.

METHODS

The following PAIC methods were compared through a case study in third-line small cell lung cancer, comparing nivolumab with standard of care based on a single-arm phase II trial (CheckMate 032) and real-world study (Flatiron) in terms of overall survival: IPD-IPD analyses using inverse odds weighting, regression adjustment, and a doubly robust method; IPD-AD analyses using matching-adjusted indirect comparison, simulated treatment comparison, and a doubly robust method.

RESULTS

Nivolumab extended survival versus standard of care with hazard ratios ranging from 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.90) in naive comparisons (identical estimates for IPD-IPD and IPD-AD analyses) to 0.69 (95% CI 0.44-0.98) in the IPD-IPD analyses using regression adjustment. Regression-based and doubly robust estimates yielded slightly wider confidence intervals versus the propensity score-based analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed doubly robust approach for time-to-event outcomes may help to minimize bias due to model misspecification. However, all methods for unanchored PAIC rely on the strong assumption that all prognostic covariates have been included.

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

Calibrating a network meta-analysis of diabetes trials of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogues and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to a representative routine population: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Participants in randomised controlled trials (trials) are generally younger and healthier than many individuals encountered in clinical practice. Consequently, the applicability of trial findings is often uncertain. To address this, results from trials can be calibrated to more representative data sources. In a network meta-analysis, using a novel approach which allows the inclusion of trials whether or not individual-level participant data (IPD) is available, we will calibrate trials for three drug classes (sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor analogues and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors) to the Scottish diabetes register.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Medline and EMBASE databases, the US clinical trials registry (clinicaltrials.gov) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn) will be searched from 1 January 2002. Two independent reviewers will apply eligibility criteria to identify trials for inclusion. Included trials will be phase 3 or 4 trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP1 receptor analogues or DPP4 inhibitors, with placebo or active comparators, in participants with type 2 diabetes, with at least one of glycaemic control, change in body weight or major adverse cardiovascular event as outcomes. Unregistered trials will be excluded.We have identified a target population from the population-based Scottish diabetes register. The chosen cohort comprises people in Scotland with type 2 diabetes who either (1) require further treatment due to poor glycaemic control where any of the three drug classes may be suitable, or (2) who have adequate glycaemic control but are already on one of the three drug classes of interest or insulin.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for IPD use was obtained from the University of Glasgow MVLS College Ethics Committee (Project: 200160070). The Scottish diabetes register has approval from the Scottish A Research Ethics Committee (11/AL/0225) and operates with Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care approval (1617-0147).

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020184174.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

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. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.