Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection

Eric Druyts,1 Kristian Thorlund,2,3 Samantha Humphreys,4 Michaela Lion,4 Curtis L Cooper,5 Edward J Mills1,31Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 3Stanford Pr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Druyts E, Thorlund K, Humphreys S, Lion M, Cooper CL, Mills EJ
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Dove Medical Press 2013-06-01
Series:Clinical Epidemiology
Online Access:http://www.dovepress.com/interpreting-discordant-indirect-and-multiple-treatment-comparison-met-a13409
_version_ 1818484360080261120
author Druyts E
Thorlund K
Humphreys S
Lion M
Cooper CL
Mills EJ
author_facet Druyts E
Thorlund K
Humphreys S
Lion M
Cooper CL
Mills EJ
author_sort Druyts E
collection DOAJ
description Eric Druyts,1 Kristian Thorlund,2,3 Samantha Humphreys,4 Michaela Lion,4 Curtis L Cooper,5 Edward J Mills1,31Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 3Stanford Prevention Research Centre, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 4Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd, UK; 5Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaAbstract: Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses are increasingly being used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of interventions when head-to-head data do not exist. ITC meta-analyses can be conducted using simple methodology to compare two interventions. MTC meta-analyses can be conducted using more complex methodology, often employing Bayesian approaches, to compare multiple interventions. As the number of ITC and MTC meta-analyses increase, it is common to find multiple analyses evaluating the same interventions in similar therapeutic areas. Depending on the choice of the methodological approach, the conclusions about relative treatment efficacy may differ. Such situations create uncertainty for decision makers. An illustration of this is provided by four ITC and MTC meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of boceprevir and telaprevir for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. This paper examines why these evaluations provide discordant results by examining specific methodological issues that can strengthen or weaken inferences.Keywords: indirect treatment comparison, multiple treatment comparison, meta-analysis, hepatitis C virus
first_indexed 2024-12-10T15:54:18Z
format Article
id doaj.art-583f2de2a39d4baaa8b359464ecc48fb
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1179-1349
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T15:54:18Z
publishDate 2013-06-01
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format Article
series Clinical Epidemiology
spelling doaj.art-583f2de2a39d4baaa8b359464ecc48fb2022-12-22T01:42:42ZengDove Medical PressClinical Epidemiology1179-13492013-06-012013Issue 1173183Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infectionDruyts EThorlund KHumphreys SLion MCooper CLMills EJEric Druyts,1 Kristian Thorlund,2,3 Samantha Humphreys,4 Michaela Lion,4 Curtis L Cooper,5 Edward J Mills1,31Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 3Stanford Prevention Research Centre, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 4Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd, UK; 5Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaAbstract: Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses are increasingly being used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of interventions when head-to-head data do not exist. ITC meta-analyses can be conducted using simple methodology to compare two interventions. MTC meta-analyses can be conducted using more complex methodology, often employing Bayesian approaches, to compare multiple interventions. As the number of ITC and MTC meta-analyses increase, it is common to find multiple analyses evaluating the same interventions in similar therapeutic areas. Depending on the choice of the methodological approach, the conclusions about relative treatment efficacy may differ. Such situations create uncertainty for decision makers. An illustration of this is provided by four ITC and MTC meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of boceprevir and telaprevir for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. This paper examines why these evaluations provide discordant results by examining specific methodological issues that can strengthen or weaken inferences.Keywords: indirect treatment comparison, multiple treatment comparison, meta-analysis, hepatitis C virushttp://www.dovepress.com/interpreting-discordant-indirect-and-multiple-treatment-comparison-met-a13409
spellingShingle Druyts E
Thorlund K
Humphreys S
Lion M
Cooper CL
Mills EJ
Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection
Clinical Epidemiology
title Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection
title_full Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection
title_fullStr Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection
title_full_unstemmed Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection
title_short Interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C infection
title_sort interpreting discordant indirect and multiple treatment comparison meta analyses an evaluation of direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis c infection
url http://www.dovepress.com/interpreting-discordant-indirect-and-multiple-treatment-comparison-met-a13409
work_keys_str_mv AT druytse interpretingdiscordantindirectandmultipletreatmentcomparisonmetaanalysesanevaluationofdirectactingantiviralsforchronichepatitiscinfection
AT thorlundk interpretingdiscordantindirectandmultipletreatmentcomparisonmetaanalysesanevaluationofdirectactingantiviralsforchronichepatitiscinfection
AT humphreyss interpretingdiscordantindirectandmultipletreatmentcomparisonmetaanalysesanevaluationofdirectactingantiviralsforchronichepatitiscinfection
AT lionm interpretingdiscordantindirectandmultipletreatmentcomparisonmetaanalysesanevaluationofdirectactingantiviralsforchronichepatitiscinfection
AT coopercl interpretingdiscordantindirectandmultipletreatmentcomparisonmetaanalysesanevaluationofdirectactingantiviralsforchronichepatitiscinfection
AT millsej interpretingdiscordantindirectandmultipletreatmentcomparisonmetaanalysesanevaluationofdirectactingantiviralsforchronichepatitiscinfection