Handling related publications reporting real-world evidence in network meta-analysis: a case study in multiple sclerosis.

Aim: The presence of two or more publications that report on overlapping patient cohorts poses a challenge for quantitatively synthesizing real-world evidence (RWE) studies. Thus, we evaluated eight approaches for handling such related publications in network meta-analyses (NMA) of RWE studies. Methods: Bayesian NMAs were conducted to estimate the annualized relapse rate (ARR) of disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. The NMA explored the impact of hierarchically selecting one pivotal study from related publications versus including all of them while adjusting for correlations. Results: When selecting one pivotal study from related publications, the ARR ratios were mostly similar regardless of the pivotal study selected. When including all related publications, there were shifts in the point estimates and the statistical significance. Conclusion: An a priori hierarchy should guide the selection among related publications in NMAs of RWE. Sensitivity analyses modifying the hierarchy should be considered for networks with few or small studies.

[1]  A. Dang.  Real-World Evidence: A Primer , 2023, Pharmaceutical Medicine.

[2]  Grammati Sarri,et al.  Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making , 2020, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[3]  L. Azoulay,et al.  Use of Real‐World Data to Emulate a Clinical Trial and Support Regulatory Decision Making: Assessing the Impact of Temporality, Comparator Choice, and Method of Adjustment , 2020, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  A. Cohen,et al.  A Systematic Review of Network Meta-Analyses and Real-World Evidence Comparing Apixaban and Rivaroxaban in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation , 2020, Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis.

[5]  Xiaohui Cui,et al.  Indirect comparison of novel Oral anticoagulants among Asians with non-Valvular atrial fibrillation in the real world setting: a network meta-analysis , 2019, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders.

[6]  M. Cheung.  A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis with Non-Independent Effect Sizes , 2019, Neuropsychology Review.

[7]  L. Kappos,et al.  Comparison of fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis , 2019, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[8]  M. Jhaveri,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of dimethyl fumarate versus fingolimod and teriflunomide among MS patients switching from first-generation platform therapies in the US. , 2019, Multiple sclerosis and related disorders.

[9]  B. Pereira,et al.  Dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis in a real‐life setting: a French retrospective cohort study , 2018, European journal of neurology.

[10]  F. Pellegrini,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate versus interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, or fingolimod: results from the German NeuroTransData registry , 2018, Journal of Neurology.

[11]  K. Abrams,et al.  Methods for the inclusion of real-world evidence in network meta-analysis , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[12]  L. Kappos,et al.  Comparative analysis of natalizumab versus fingolimod as second-line treatment in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis , 2018, Multiple sclerosis.

[13]  C. Enzinger,et al.  Real‐life clinical use of natalizumab and fingolimod in Austria , 2018, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[14]  F. Ernst,et al.  Relapse outcomes, safety, and treatment patterns in patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and initiated on subcutaneous interferon β-1a or dimethyl fumarate: a real-world study , 2017, Current medical research and opinion.

[15]  Jeffrey A. Cohen,et al.  Comparative efficacy and discontinuation of dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod in clinical practice at 24-month follow-up , 2017, Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical.

[16]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Treatment effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with natalizumab, fingolimod, and interferon beta in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a cohort study , 2017, The Lancet Neurology.

[17]  A. Boster,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Research of Disease-Modifying Therapies for the Management of Multiple Sclerosis: Analysis of a Large Health Insurance Claims Database , 2017, Neurology and Therapy.

[18]  P. Soelberg Sørensen,et al.  A comparison of multiple sclerosis clinical disease activity between patients treated with natalizumab and fingolimod , 2017, Multiple sclerosis.

[19]  R. Califf,et al.  Real-World Evidence - What Is It and What Can It Tell Us? , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Jeffrey A. Cohen,et al.  Comparative efficacy and discontinuation of dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod in clinical practice at 12-month follow-up. , 2016, Multiple sclerosis and related disorders.

[21]  Gianluca Baio,et al.  Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999–2014 , 2016, BMJ Open.

[22]  V. Martinelli,et al.  Natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis non-responding to first-line injectable therapies , 2016, Multiple sclerosis.

[23]  P. Gallo,et al.  Overview of the management of relapsing−remitting multiple sclerosis and practical recommendations , 2015, European journal of neurology.

[24]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Comparison of switch to fingolimod or interferon beta/glatiramer acetate in active multiple sclerosis. , 2015, JAMA neurology.

[25]  J. Lechner-Scott,et al.  Switch to natalizumab versus fingolimod in active relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis , 2015, Annals of neurology.

[26]  L. Kappos,et al.  Comparative efficacy of switching to natalizumab in active multiple sclerosis , 2015, Annals of clinical and translational neurology.

[27]  A. Finkelsztejn.  Multiple Sclerosis: Overview of Disease-Modifying Agents , 2014, Perspectives in medicinal chemistry.

[28]  G. Capkun,et al.  Relapse Rates in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Switching from Interferon to Fingolimod or Glatiramer Acetate: A US Claims Database Study , 2014, PloS one.

[29]  G. Capkun,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferons or glatiramer acetate for relapse rates in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective US claims database analysis , 2013, Current medical research and opinion.

[30]  Spyros Konstantopoulos,et al.  Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three‐level meta‐analysis , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[31]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  Stephen J Senn,et al.  Overstating the evidence – double counting in meta-analysis and related problems , 2009, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[33]  A. Compston,et al.  For Personal Use. Only Reproduce with Permission from the Lancet Publishing Group. Pathological Physiology and Anatomy Multiple Sclerosis , 2022 .

[34]  B D Trapp,et al.  Axonal pathology in multiple sclerosis: relationship to neurologic disability. , 1999, Current opinion in neurology.

[35]  R M Pitkin,et al.  Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. , 1999, JAMA.

[36]  N. Black.  Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care , 1996, BMJ.