The impact of individual patient data in a network meta‐analysis: An investigation into parameter estimation and model selection

The use of individual patient data (IPD) in network meta-analysis (NMA) is becoming increasingly popular. However, as most studies do not report IPD, most NMAs are performed using aggregate data for at least some, if not all, of the studies. We investigate the benefits of including varying proportions of IPD studies in an NMA. Several models have previously been developed for including both aggregate data and IPD in the same NMA. We performed a simulation study based on these models to examine the impact of additional IPD studies on the accuracy and precision of the estimates of both the treatment effect and the covariate effect. We also compared the deviance information criterion (DIC) between models to assess model fit. An increased proportion of IPD resulted in more accurate and precise estimates for most models and datasets. However, the coverage probability sometimes decreased when the model was misspecified. The use of IPD leads to greater differences in DIC, which allows us choose the correct model more often. We analysed a Hepatitis C network consisting of 3 IPD observational studies. The ranking of treatments remained the same for all models and datasets. We observed similar results to the simulation study: The use of IPD leads to differences in DIC and more precise estimates for the covariate effect. However, IPD sometimes increased the posterior SD of the treatment effect estimate, which may indicate between study heterogeneity. We recommend that IPD should be used where possible, especially for assessing model fit.

[1]  J. Lambert,et al.  Effectiveness of interferon-free therapy for the treatment of HCV-patients with compensated cirrhosis treated through the Irish early access program , 2017, Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology.

[2]  Orestis Efthimiou,et al.  Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[3]  Catrin Tudur Smith,et al.  Combining individual patient data and aggregate data in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis: Individual patient data may be beneficial if only for a subset of trials , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  Deborah M Caldwell,et al.  Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  L. Stewart,et al.  To IPD or not to IPD? , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[6]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[7]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .

[8]  C. Walraven Individual patient meta-analysis--rewards and challenges. , 2010 .

[9]  A. Sutton,et al.  Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease. , 2009, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  J. van Lunzen,et al.  Safety and efficacy of protease inhibitor based combination therapy in a single-center “real-life” cohort of 110 patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infection , 2014, BMC Gastroenterology.

[12]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  An overview of methods for network meta-analysis using individual participant data: when do benefits arise? , 2018, Statistical methods in medical research.

[13]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use , 2015, PLoS medicine.

[14]  L. Wasserman,et al.  The Selection of Prior Distributions by Formal Rules , 1996 .

[15]  R. Doughty,et al.  Understanding differences in results from literature-based and individual patient meta-analyses: an example from meta-analyses of observational data. , 2011, International journal of cardiology.

[16]  Jeroen P Jansen,et al.  Network meta‐analysis of individual and aggregate level data , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[17]  Cathal Walsh,et al.  Incorporating data from various trial designs into a mixed treatment comparison model , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  L. Thabane,et al.  An empirical comparison of methods for analyzing correlated data from a discrete choice survey to elicit patient preference for colorectal cancer screening , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[19]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Heterogeneity: Subgroups, Meta-Regression, Bias And Bias-Adjustment , 2011 .

[20]  Areti Angeliki Veroniki,et al.  A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.