The importance of considering differences in study and patient characteristics before undertaking indirect treatment comparisons: a case study of siponimod for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

References

• Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Statist Med. 2004;23(20):3105–3124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salanti G. Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Syn Meth. 2012;3(2):80–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment. Heterogeneity: Subgroups, Meta-Regression, Bias And Bias-Adjustment. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(8):857–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cope S, Zhang J, Saletan S, et al. A process for assessing the feasibility of a network meta-analysis: a case study of everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy versus chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. BMC Med. 2014;12(1):93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron C, Hutton B, Druchok C, et al. Importance of assessing and adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity in network meta-analysis: a case study of psoriasis. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(11):1037–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron C, Fireman B, Hutton B, et al. Network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative cohort studies for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments: challenges and opportunities. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Donegan S, Williamson P, D’Alessandro U, et al. Assessing key assumptions of network meta-analysis: a review of methods. Res Syn Meth. 2013;4(4):291–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron C, Ewara E, Wilson FR, et al. The importance of considering differences in study design in network meta-analysis: an application using anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs for ulcerative colitis. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(8):894–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorlund K, Druyts E, Avina-Zubieta JA, et al. Why the findings of published multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis are different: an overview of recurrent methodological shortcomings. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(9):1524–1535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Multiple Sclerosis Society [Internet]. New York (NY): NMSS [cited 2017 June 19]. Available from: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Definition-of-MS.. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Tremlett H, Yinshan Z, Devonshire V. Natural history of secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. 2008;14(3):314–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Angelis F, Plantone D, Chataway J. Pharmacotherapy in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: an overview. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(6):499–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kappos L, Bar-Or A, Cree BAC, et al. Siponimod versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (EXPAND): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2018;391(10127):1263–1273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapoor R, Ho PR, Campbell N, et al. Effect of natalizumab on disease progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (ASCEND): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label extension. The Lancet Neurology. 2018;17(5):405–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samjoo IS, Worthington E, Haltner A, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of siponimod and other disease modifying treatments in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020. DOI:10.1080/03007995.2020.1747999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen O, Elovaara I, Farkkila M, et al. Multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, phase III study of weekly, low dose, subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol, Neurosurg, Psych. 2004;75(5):706–710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li DK, Zhao GJ, Paty DW. Randomized controlled trial of interferon-beta-1a in secondary progressive MS: MRI results. Neurology. 2001;56(11):1505–1513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SPECTRIMS Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of interferon- beta-1a in secondary progressive MS: clinical results. Neurology. 2001;56(11):1496–1504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Fischer JS, et al. Benefit of interferon beta-1a on MSFC progression in secondary progressive MS. Neurology. 2002;59(5):679–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panitch H, Miller A, Paty D, et al. Interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive MS: results from a 3-year controlled study. Neurology. 2004;63(10):1788–1795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kappos L, Polman C, Pozzilli C, et al. Final analysis of the European multicenter trial on IFNbeta-1b in secondary-progressive MS. Neurology. 2001;57(11):1969–1975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Study Group. Placebo-controlled multicentre randomised trial of interferon beta-1b in treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. European Study Group on interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive MS. Lancet. 1998;352(9139):1491–1497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias SW, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Phillippo DM, Ades A, Dias S, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE; London (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol. 1983;13(3):227–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol. 2011;69(2):292–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and idnirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobías A, Catalá-López F, Roqué M. Development of an Excel spreadsheet for meta-analysis of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2014;88(1):5–15. Spanish.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, et al. Ocrelizumab versus Interferon Beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(3):221–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montalban X, Hauser SL, Kappos L, et al. Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(3):209–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kappos L, Li D, Calabresi PA, et al. Ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9805):1779–1787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Mantia L, Vacchi L, Di Pietrantonj C, et al. Interferon beta for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:1:CD005181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikfar S, Rahimi R, Abdollahi M. A meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of interferon-beta in multiple sclerosis, overall and by drug and disease type. Clin Ther. 2010;32(11):1871–1888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar