Abstract

Individual patient data (IPD) present particular advantages in network meta-analysis (NMA) because interactions may lead an aggregated data (AD)-based model to wrong a treatment effect (TE) estimation. However, fewer works have been conducted for IPD with time-to-event contrary to binary outcomes. We aimed to develop a general frequentist one-step model for evaluating TE in the presence of interaction in a three-node NMA for time-to-event data. One-step, frequentist, IPD-based Cox and Poisson generalized linear mixed models were proposed. We simulated a three-node network with or without a closed loop with (1) no interaction, (2) covariate-treatment interaction, and (3) covariate distribution heterogeneity and covariate-treatment interaction. These models were applied to the NMA (Meta-analyses of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] and Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]), which compared the addition of chemotherapy or modified radiotherapy (mRT) to loco-regional treatment with two direct comparisons. AD-based (contrast and meta-regression) models were used as reference. In the simulated study, no IPD models failed to converge. IPD-based models performed well in all scenarios and configurations with small bias. There were few variations across different scenarios. In contrast, AD-based models performed well when there were no interactions, but demonstrated some bias when interaction existed and a larger one when the modifier was not distributed evenly. While meta-regression performed better than contrast-based only, it demonstrated a large variability in estimated TE. In the real data example, Cox and Poisson IPD-based models gave similar estimations of the model parameters. Interaction decomposition permitted by IPD explained the ecological bias observed in the meta-regression. The proposed general one-step frequentist Cox and Poisson models had small bias in the evaluation of a three-node network with interactions. They performed as well or better than AD-based models and should also be undertaken whenever possible.

Highlights

  • Individual patient data (IPD) present particular advantages in network meta-analysis (NMA) because interactions may lead an aggregated data (AD)-based model to wrong a treatment effect (TE) estimation

  • We simulated a three-node network with or without a closed loop with (1) no interaction, (2) covariate-treatment interaction, and (3) covariate distribution heterogeneity and covariate-treatment interaction. These models were applied to the NMA (Meta-analyses of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] and Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]), which compared the addition of chemotherapy or modified radiotherapy to loco-regional treatment with two direct comparisons

  • While meta-regression performed better than contrastbased only, it demonstrated a large variability in estimated TE

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Individual patient data (IPD) present particular advantages in network meta-analysis (NMA) because interactions may lead an aggregated data (AD)-based model to wrong a treatment effect (TE) estimation. We aimed to develop a general frequentist one-step model for evaluating TE in the presence of interaction in a three-node NMA for time-to-event data. Direct treatment effect (TE) estimation between two treatments from a single randomized clinical trial (RCT) is prone to sampling variability and the “traditional” meta-analyses (MA) aim to reduce this variability by gathering TE estimates from several trials. Network meta-analyses (NMA), first described in 2002 [1] extend this principle when more than two therapeutic options are available. In NMAs of treatments, a network is created whose nodes are therapeutic options (subsequently designated by “treatment”) and edges (subsequently designated by “comparisons”) are pairwise treatment comparisons. According to the network geometry, treatment comparison might be estimated by either indirect comparison only or combining information from both direct and indirect comparison [2]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call