Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-analysis Research Articles

Optimal Hemostatic Band Duration After Transradial Angiography or Intervention: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

The optimal duration of hemostatic compression post transradial access is controversial. Longer duration increases the risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) while shorter duration increases the risk of access site bleeding or hematoma. As such, a target of 2 hours is typically used. Whether a shorter or longer duration is better is not known. A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials of different duration (<90 minutes, 90 minutes, 2 hours, and 2-4 hours) of hemostasis banding. The efficacy outcome was RAO, primary safety outcome was access site hematoma, and secondary safety outcome was access site rebleeding. Primary analysis compared the effect of various duration in reference to the 2 hours duration using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Of the 10 randomized clinical trials included with 4911 patients, when compared to the 2-hour reference duration, there was a significantly higher risk of access site hematoma with 90 minutes (odds ratio, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40-4.06]) and <90 minutes (odds ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 1.79-7.29]) but not with the 2 to 4 hours duration. When compared with the 2-hour reference, there was no significant difference in access site rebleeding or RAO with shorter or longer duration but the point estimates favored longer duration for access site rebleeding and shorter duration for RAO. Duration of <90 minutes and 90 minutes ranked 1 and duration of 2 hours ranked 2 as the most efficacious duration whereas duration of 2 hours ranked 1 and 2 to 4 hours ranked 2 as the safest duration. In patients undergoing transradial access for coronary angiography or intervention, a hemostasis duration of 2 hours offers the best balance for efficacy (prevention of RAO) and safety (prevention of access site hematoma/rebleeding).

Lixisenatide for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Inadequately Controlled on Oral Antidiabetic Drugs: A Mixed-Treatment Comparison Meta-analysis and Cost-Utility Analysis.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-utility (from the Chinese health insurance perspective) of lixisenatide and insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).MethodsA comprehensive literature search of English (PubMed and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (CNKI and WanFang) language databases was performed, and head-to-head relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved and analyzed by performing a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis for efficacy and safety endpoints. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to compare the lifetime pharmacoeconomic profiles among the treatment groups.ResultsEleven RCTs were included in this MTC meta-analysis. Regarding glycated hemoglobin targets, lixisenatide was similar to both basal insulin (mean difference [MD] 0.27%; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.02%, 0.57%) and premixed insulin (MD 0.32%; 95% CrI − 0.01%, 0.66%), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found for changes in body weight in favor of lixisenatide compared with basal insulin (MD − 3.22 kg; 95% CrI − 5.51 kg, − 0.94 kg) and premixed insulin (MD − 2.68 kg; 95% CrI − 5.16 kg, − 0.20 kg). The relative risk (RR) of symptomatic hypoglycemia associated with lixisenatide was also significantly lower than that associated with basal insulin (RR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.09, 0.52) and premixed insulin (RR 0.17; 95% CrI 0.07, 0.41). The cost–utility analysis yielded results of ¥61,072 ($8565, vs. basal insulin) and ¥127,169 ($17,836, vs. premixed insulin) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with both values falling within the willingness-to-pay threshold in China.ConclusionsFor T2DM patients inadequately controlled on OADs, lixisenatide was shown to be comparable to basal insulin and premixed insulin in terms of HbA1c and better than both of the latter in terms of both body weight loss and hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide was also a cost-effective treatment option from the perspective of Chinese health insurance.Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-020-00857-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aproximación a los metanálisis de comparación de múltiples tratamientos: una revisión de la literatura

Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses are systematic reviews that allow to make direct or indirect comparisons of different interventions from the data collection results of randomized clinical trials, grouping them in a common outcome or conglomerate which is expressed quantitatively. Other names given are network meta-analyses, or mixed treatment comparison meta-analyses or indirect meta-analyses. The use of the comparison of several treatments allows a greater estimation of the intervention effect. This is a guide for the physician to make more accurate decisions and to apply better care criteria to their patients. This literature review should help the reader to perform an organized and adequate critical reading (according to the JAMA recommendations) of the multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses. The article is addressed to authors and editors, and it contains information on how this type of studies should be interpreted and communicated.

Frontline treatment for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma: A 6474 patients network meta-analysis.

Autologous transplantation continues to be the cornerstone of younger and fit multiple myeloma patients. It is known that frontline induction therapy before transplantation can influence post-transplant results. Therefore, best frontline treatment for transplant-eligible patients should be based on best available evidence to guide therapy. Furthermore, until now due to data scarcity, it was not possible to thoroughly compare lenalidomide to other regimens in this setting. We performed a systematic review and network (mixed treatment comparison) meta-analysis of 21 clinical trial publications, enrolling 6474 patients and comparing 11 different treatment frontline setting regimens regarding survival, response, and safety outcomes. OS analysis showed superiority of CRD (cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) over TD-based (thalidomide-dexamethasone, HR=0.76,0.62-0.90), VAD-based (HR=0.71,0.52-0.90), and Z-Dex (idarubicin-dexamethasone, HR=0.37,0.17-0.76) regimens. Concerning PFS, VTD (bortezomib-thalidomide-dexametasone) showed superior results when compared with TD-based (HR=0.66,0.51-0.84), VAD-based (HR=0.61,0.46-0.82), Z-Dex (HR=0.42,0.22-0.78), and high dose dexamethasone (Dex, HR=0.62,0.41-0.90) regimens. Bortezomib/thalidomide regimens were not superior to lenalidomide, considering these outcomes. Also, concerning complete and overall response, VTD ranked first among other regimens, showing clear superiority over thalidomide-only containing protocols. Safety outcome evaluated infectious, cardiac, gastrointestinal, neurological, thrombotic, and hematological grade 3 to 4 adverse events. Risk of thrombotic events was higher with TAD (thalidomide-doxorubicin-dexamethasone), neurological with PAD (bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone), infectious with Dex, hematological with Z-Dex, gastrointestinal with VTD, and cardiac with PAD regimens. Our study endorses current recommendations on combined immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors frontline regimens (in triplets) in transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients, but also formally demonstrates the favorable performance of lenalidomide in overall and progression-free survival, when compared with bortezomib/thalidomide protocols.

Update in Cardiovascular Safety of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes—A Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) was recently published. Thus, we here present a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis (MTC) of major randomized clinical trials to determine Glucagon like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists’ effects on CV outcomes in patients with T2DM. Methods: A comprehensive, systematic review was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases. Studies were included in the MTC meta-analysis if they were (1) RCTs and (2) evaluated the effects of one of the GLP-1 agonists vs. placebo on CV outcomes as their primary endpoint. The primary outcomes were CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. Hospitalization for HF was evaluated as a secondary endpoint. Results: A total of 202 publications were identified and reviewed, of which 198 were excluded based on study design or relevance to the research question. A total of 4 trials, including 33,457 patients, met the eligibility criteria and were retained analysis. The pairwise meta-analysis showed a 13% reduction in death from cardiovascular causes in patients who received GLP-1 agonists vs. those who received placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96, I2=0%, P=0.592). The NMA showed no differences among all the interventions, with liraglutide the preferred agent (53%) followed by semaglutide (18%). The pairwise meta-analysis showed no significant reduction in non-fatal MI events between the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86-1.04, I2=19.5%, P=0.293). Like the pairwise meta-analysis, the NMA results showed no reduction in non-fatal MI events with semaglutide as the preferred agent (66%), followed by liraglutide (19%). Conclusion: GLP-1 therapy was associated with a significant reduction in CV death. However, GLP-1 agonists seem to have a safety profile comparable to placebo in terms of reducing non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke events, and rates of HF hospitalization. Disclosure O. Alfayez: None. M.S. Al Yami: None. R. Alsheikh: None.

Materials used for indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth: a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis.

This study aimed to systematically review the literature to address the question regarding the influence of different materials in the clinical and radiographic success of indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth. A literature search was carried out for articles published prior to January 2017 in PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, TRIP and ClinicalTrials databases; relevant articles included randomized clinical trials that compared materials used for indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The effects of each material on the outcome (clinical and radiographic failures) were analyzed using a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis. The ranking of treatments according to their probability of being the best choice was also calculated. From 1,088 potentially eligible studies, 11 were selected for full-text analysis, and 4 were included in the meta-analysis. In all papers, calcium hydroxide liner was used as the control group versus an adhesive system, resin-modified glass ionomer cement or placebo. The follow-up period ranged from 24 to 48 months, with dropout rates of 0-25.7%. The material type did not significantly affect the risk of failure of the indirect pulp treatment. However, calcium hydroxide presented a higher probability of failure. In conclusion, there is no scientific evidence showing the superiority of any material used for indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth.

Meta-Analysis of Culprit-Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease

Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCT) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) have compared a strategy of routine multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed either as a single procedure or as staged procedures to culprit-only PCI. All of these trials have been underpowered for clinical end points. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCT comparing multivessel PCI with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and MVD. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite rate of death or MI. Other efficacy outcomes included death, MI, and repeat revascularization. Safety outcomes were contrast-associated acute kidney injury, stroke, and major bleeding. Pairwise direct comparison and mixed-treatment comparison network meta-analyses were performed. Eleven trials that enrolled 3,150 patients with a total of 5,296 patient-years of follow-up were included. In direct comparison meta-analysis, single-procedure multivessel PCI was associated with a reduction in the risk of death or MI (rate ratio [RR] = 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.73; p <0.001), due to less death (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.02; p = 0.06) and MI (RR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.69; p <0.0001) compared with culprit-only PCI. No heterogeneity (I2 = 0) was present between studies. In contrast, staged multivessel PCI did not significantly reduce death or MI compared with culprit-only PCI. Both multivessel PCI strategies reduced the risk of repeat revascularization without significant differences in safety outcomes. Results were consistent in the mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that single-procedure multivessel PCI may be the preferred strategy in patients with STEMI and MVD.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically ill patients: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) or fondaparinux for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), in medically-ill patients. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been evaluated relative to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis though head-to-head comparisons of these agents are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of established treatments and DOACs for VTE prophylaxis in medically-ill patients. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify randomized trials evaluating UFH, LMWHs or DOACS for the prevention of VTE in medically ill patients. Articles were retrieved and cross-referenced for additional trials, evaluated and entered into ADDIS (version 1.16.6) to generate direct and indirect treatment comparisons for VTE, DVT, PE, death from any cause, and bleeding. Ten articles were included and eight anticoagulants were evaluated in a treatment network representing data on 28,382 patients. We found each treatment had similar efficacy in preventing VTE, DVT, PE, death from any cause and each had similar risk of minor and major bleeding. Overall, placebo was associated with more VTE and DVT events compared to LMWHs and DOACs. We found that UFH, LMWHs and DOACs are comparable in preventing VTE, DVT, PE, and death from any cause and in association with minor and major bleeding. Anticoagulant selection for VTE prophylaxis in medically-ill patients should be individualized by patient characteristics, risks and preferences along with specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations.

A Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Pharmacotherapeutic Monotherapy and Placebo for Pulmonary Artery Hypertension

A Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Pharmacotherapeutic Monotherapy and Placebo for Pulmonary Artery Hypertension

Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis for correlated outcomes subject to reporting bias.

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) report more than one primary outcome. As a result, multivariate meta-analytic methods for the assimilation of treatment effects in systematic reviews of RCTs have received increasing attention in the literature. These methods show promise with respect to bias reduction and efficiency gain compared to univariate meta-analysis. However, most methods for multivariate meta-analysis have focused on pairwise treatment comparisons (i.e., when the number of treatments is two). Current methods for mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis (i.e., when the number of treatments is more than two) have focused on univariate or very recently, bivariate outcomes. To broaden their application, we propose a framework for MTC meta-analysis of multivariate (≥ 2) outcomes where the correlations among multivariate outcomes within- and between-studies are accounted for through copulas, and the joint modeling of multivariate random effects, respectively. We consider a Bayesian hierarchical model using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for estimation. An important feature of the proposed framework is that it allows for borrowing of information across correlated outcomes. We show via simulation that our approach reduces the impact of outcome reporting bias (ORB) in a variety of missing outcome scenarios. We apply the method to a systematic review of RCTs of pharmacological treatments for alcohol dependence, which tends to report multiple outcomes potentially subject to ORB.

Efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison analysis.

To compare efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in people with type 2 diabetes. We electronically searched, up to June 3, 2016, published randomized clinical trials lasting between 24 and 32 weeks that compared a GLP-1RA (albiglutide, dulaglutide, twice-daily exenatide and once-weekly exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide and taspoglutide) with placebo or another GLP-1RA. Data on cardiometabolic and safety outcomes were analysed using a mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis. A total of 34 trials (14 464 participants) met the inclusion criteria; no published data for semaglutide were available. Compared with placebo, all GLP-1RAs reduced glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (reductions ranged from -0.55% and -0.73 mmol/L, respectively, for lixisenatide to -1.21% and -1.97 mmol/L, respectively, for dulaglutide). There were no differences within short-acting (twice-daily exenatide and lixisenatide) or long-acting (albiglutide, dulaglutide, once-weekly exenatide, liraglutide and taspoglutide) groups. Compared with twice-daily exenatide, dulaglutide treatment was associated with the greatest HbA1c and FPG reduction (0.51% and 1.04 mmol/L, respectively), followed by liraglutide (0.45% and 0.93 mmol/L, respectively) and once-weekly exenatide (0.38% and 0.85 mmol/L, respectively); similar reductions were found when these 3 agents were compared with lixisenatide. Compared with placebo, all GLP-1RAs except albiglutide reduced weight and increased the risk of hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal side effects, and all agents except dulaglutide and taspoglutide reduced systolic blood pressure. When all GLP-1RAs were compared with each other, no clinically meaningful differences were observed in weight loss, blood pressure reduction or hypoglycaemia risk. Albiglutide had the lowest risk of nausea and diarrhoea and once-weekly exenatide the lowest risk of vomiting. The RCTs in the present analysis show that all GLP-1RAs improve glycaemic control, reduce body weight and increase the risk of adverse gastrointestinal symptoms compared with placebo. Although there were no differences when short-acting agents were compared with each other or when long-acting agents were compared with each other, dulaglutide, liraglutide and once-weekly exenatide were superior to twice-daily exenatide and lixisenatide at lowering HbA1c and FPG levels. There were no differences in hypoglycaemia between these 3 agents, whilst once-weekly exenatide had the lowest risk of vomiting. These results, along with patient's preferences and individualized targets, should be considered when selecting a GLP-1RA.

A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of metaphylaxis treatments for bovine respiratory disease in beef cattle.

The objective of this project was to evaluate the effects of antimicrobials approved for parenteral metaphylactic use in feeder and stocker calves on morbidity and mortality for bovine respiratory disease with the use of a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. An initial literature review was conducted in April 2016 through Pubmed, Agricola, and CAB (Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau) for randomized controlled trials for metaphylaxis antimicrobial administered parentally to incoming feedlot or stocker calves within 48 h of arrival. The final list of publications included 29 studies, with a total of 37 trials. There were 8 different metaphylactic antimicrobials. Final event outcomes were categorized into bovine respiratory disease (BRD) morbidity cumulative incidence d 1 to ≤ 60 of the feeding period, BRD morbidity cumulative incidence d 1 to closeout of the feeding period, BRD mortality cumulative incidence d 1 to closeout of the feeding period, and BRD retreatment cumulative incidence morbidity d 1 to closeout of the feeding period. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence for all the event outcomes to determine mean odds ratio (OR) with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs) for all metaphylactic antimicrobial comparisons. The "upper tier" treatment arms for morbidity d 1 to ≤ 60 included tulathromycin, gamithromycin, and tilmicosin. For BRD mortality cumulative incidence d 1 to closeout and BRD retreatment morbidity d 1 to closeout, classifying the treatment arms into tiers was not possible due to overlapping 95% CrIs. The results of this project accurately identified differences between metaphylactic antimicrobials, and metaphylactic antimicrobial options appear to offer different outcomes on BRD morbidity and mortality odds in feedlot cattle.

A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of metaphylaxis treatments for bovine respiratory disease in beef cattle

A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of metaphylaxis treatments for bovine respiratory disease in beef cattle

Wounds research for patient benefit: a 5-year programme of research

BackgroundComplex wounds are those that heal by secondary intention and include lower-limb ulcers, pressure ulcers and some surgical wounds. The care of people with complex wounds is costly, with care mainly being delivered by community nurses. There is a lack of current, high-quality data regarding the numbers and types of people affected, care received and outcomes achieved.ObjectivesTo (1) assess how high-quality data about complex wounds can be captured effectively for use in both service planning and research while ensuring integration with current clinical data collection systems and minimal impact on staff time; (2) investigate whether or not a clinical register of people with complex wounds could give valid estimates of treatment effects, thus reducing dependence on large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (3) identify the most important research questions and outcomes for people with complex wounds from the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals; (4) evaluate the potential contributions to decision-making of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; and (5) complete and update systematic reviews in topic areas of high priority.MethodsTo meet objectives 1 and 2 we conducted a prevalence survey and developed and piloted a longitudinal disease register. A consultative, deliberative method and in-depth interviews were undertaken to address objective 3. To address objectives 4 and 5 we conducted systematic reviews including mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.ResultsFrom the prevalence survey we estimated the point prevalence of all complex wounds to be 1.47 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.56 per 1000 people). Pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers were the most common type of complex wound. A total of 195 people with a complex wound were recruited to a complex wounds register pilot. We established the feasibility of correctly identifying, extracting and transferring routine NHS data into the register; however, participant recruitment, data collection and tracking individual wounds in people with multiple wounds were challenging. Most patients and health professionals regarded healing of the wound as the primary treatment goal. Patients were greatly troubled by the social consequences of having a complex wound. Complex wounds are frequently a consequence of, and are themselves, a long-term condition but treatment is usually focused on healing the wound. Consultative, deliberative research agenda setting on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment with patients, carers and clinicians yielded 960 treatment uncertainties and a top 12 list of research priorities. Of 167 RCTs of complex wound treatments in a systematic review of study quality, 41% did not specify a primary outcome and the overall quality of the conduct and reporting of the research was poor. Mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis in areas of high priority identified that matrix hydrocolloid dressings had the highest probability (70%) of being the most effective dressing for diabetic foot ulcers, whereas a hyaluronan fleece dressing had the highest probability (35%) of being the most effective dressing for venous ulcers; however, the quality of this evidence was low and uncertainty is high.ConclusionsComplex wounds are common and costly with a poor evidence base for many frequent clinical decisions. There is little routine clinical data collection in community nursing. A prospective complex wounds register has the potential to both assist clinical decision-making and provide important research evidence but would be challenging to implement without investment in information technology in NHS community services. Future work should focus on developing insights into typical wound healing trajectories, identifying factors that are prognostic for healing and assessing the cost-effectiveness of selected wound treatments.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Indirect comparison of teriparatide, denosumab, and oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

This study aims to compare the efficacy of teriparatide, denosumab, and oral bisphosphonates for reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. We searched the literature, via PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to screen citations from January 1996 to October 2014 for inclusion in this study. A mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework was performed by WinBUGS version 1.4.3 software. The proportions of women with vertebral fractures and women with nonvertebral fractures were analyzed. Our meta-analysis results indicated that all of the therapies-except etidronate-achieved a statistically significant reduction of fractures compared with placebo. Teriparatide and denosumab were more effective than alendronate and risedronate for reducing vertebral fracture (teriparatide vs alendronate: odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.03-2.98; teriparatide vs risedronate: OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.13-3.19; denosumab vs alendronate: OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.06-2.67; denosumab vs risedronate: OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.16-2.92). Teriparatide, denosumab, alendronate, and risedronate also reduced the risk of nonvertebral fracture compared with placebo. Results of subgroup analysis showed that denosumab (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.37-0.98), alendronate (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96), and risedronate (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.86) can reduce the risk of hip fracture and that risedronate (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.4-0.88) can also reduce the risk of upper-arm fracture. Teriparatide, denosumab, alendronate, and risedronate are effective in reducing the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Furthermore, denosumab, alendronate, and risedronate can reduce the risk of hip fracture, and risedronate can also reduce the risk of upper-arm fracture.

A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.

BackgroundSelecting the most effective diagnostic method is essential for patient management and public health interventions. This requires evidence of the relative performance of alternative tests or diagnostic algorithms. Consequently, there is a need for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses allowing the comparison of the accuracy of two or more competing tests. The meta-analyses are however complicated by the paucity of studies that directly compare the performance of diagnostic tests. A second complication is that the diagnostic accuracy of the tests is usually determined through the comparison of the index test results with those of a reference standard. These reference standards are presumed to be perfect, i.e. allowing the classification of diseased and non-diseased subjects without error. In practice, this assumption is however rarely valid and most reference standards show false positive or false negative results. When an imperfect reference standard is used, the estimated accuracy of the tests of interest may be biased, as well as the comparisons between these tests.MethodsWe propose a model that allows for the comparison of the accuracy of two diagnostic tests using direct (head-to-head) comparisons as well as indirect comparisons through a third test. In addition, the model allows and corrects for imperfect reference tests. The model is inspired by mixed-treatment comparison meta-analyses that have been developed for the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. As the model is estimated using Bayesian methods, it can incorporate prior knowledge on the diagnostic accuracy of the reference tests used.ResultsWe show the bias that can result from using inappropriate methods in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests and how our method provides more correct estimates of the difference in diagnostic accuracy between two tests. As an illustration, we apply this model to a dataset on visceral leishmaniasis diagnostic tests, comparing the accuracy of the RK39 dipstick with that of the direct agglutination test.ConclusionsOur proposed meta-analytic model can improve the comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of competing tests in a systematic review. This is however only true if the studies and especially information on the reference tests used are sufficiently detailed. More specifically, the type and exact procedures used as reference tests are needed, including any cut-offs used and the number of subjects excluded from full reference test assessment. If this information is lacking, it may be better to limit the meta-analysis to direct comparisons.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0061-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Effect of Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists on Weight Loss in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis.

AimsTo determine the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo and other anti-diabetic agents on weight loss in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsElectronic searches were conducted for randomised controlled trials that compared a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy at a clinically relevant dose with a comparator treatment (other type 2 diabetes treatment or placebo) in adults with type 2 diabetes and a mean body mass index ≥ 25kg/m2. Pair-wise meta-analyses and mixed treatment comparisons were conducted to examine the difference in weight change at six months between the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and each comparator.ResultsIn the mixed treatment comparison (27 trials), the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were the most successful in terms of weight loss; exenatide 2mg/week: -1.62kg (95% CrI: -2.95kg, -0.30kg), exenatide 20μg: -1.37kg (95% CI: -222kg, -0.52kg), liraglutide 1.2mg: -1.01kg (95%CrI: -2.41kg, 0.38kg) and liraglutide 1.8mg: -1.51 kg (95% CI: -2.67kg, -0.37kg) compared with placebo. There were no differences between the GLP-1 receptor agonists in terms of weight loss.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapies are associated with weight loss in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes with no difference in weight loss seen between the different types of GLP-1 receptor agonists assessed.

Infliximab is superior to other biological agents for treatment of active ulcerative colitis: A meta-analysis

To compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis (UC). PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched to screen relevant articles from January 1996 to August 2014. The mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework was performed using WinBUGS14 software. The proportions of patients reaching clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing in induction and maintenance phases were analyzed as efficacy indicators. Serious adverse events in maintenance phase were analyzed as safety indicators. The meta-analysis results showed that biological agents achieved better clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing than placebo. Indirect comparison indicated that in induction phase, infliximab was more effective than adalimumab in inducing clinical response (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.29-0.57), clinical remission (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.19-0.56) and mucosal healing (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.19-0.56), and golimumab in inducing clinical response (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.39-2.33) and mucosal healing (OR = 2.15, 95%CI: 1.18-4.22). No significant difference was found between placebo and biological agents regarding their safety. All biological agents were superior to placebo for UC treatment in both induction and maintenance phases with a similar safety profile, and infliximab had a better clinical effect than the other biological agents.

TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis.

TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis.

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

BackgroundAntifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC.ResultsFive eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35–0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32–0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28–0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17–0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17–0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42–1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents.ConclusionAs expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-0855-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.