Indirect and mixed treatment comparisons in arthritis research

Rheumatology

Volumn 50, Issue SUPPL. 4, 2011, Pages

  Ades, Anthony E ^a   Madan, Jason ^a   Welton, Nicky J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biologic therapies; Indirect comparisons; Mixed treatment comparison; Network meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ADALIMUMAB; CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL; DISEASE MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG; ETANERCEPT; INFLIXIMAB; METHOTREXATE; PLACEBO; RECOMBINANT INTERLEUKIN 1 RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; RITUXIMAB;

ARTHRITIS; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE DURATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZATION; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; RISK; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TREATMENT INDICATION;

ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, PSORIATIC; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80052235186     PISSN: 14620324     EISSN: 14620332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker241     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683-91.
2. Gleser L, Olkin I. Meta-analysis for 2X2 tables with multiple treatment groups. In: Stangl DK, Berry DA, eds. Meta-analysis in medicine and health policy. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000.
3. Higgins JPT, Whitehead J. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 1996;15: 2733-49.
4. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24.
5. Higgins JPT and Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.
6. Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams KR. Use of mixed and indirect comparisons in technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:753-67.
7. Lu G, Ades A. Assessing evidence consistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006;101: 447-59.
8. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials 2011, Available from http://www.nicedsu.org.uk.
9. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. Br Med J 2005;331:897-900.
10. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1-19.
11. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. London: Wiley, 2000.
12. Lu G, Ades A. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23: 3105-24.
13. Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002; 21:1559-74.
14. Nixon R, Bansback N, Brennan A. Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Stat Med 2007;26:1237-54.
15. Singh JA, Christensen R, Wells GA et al. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview. Can Med Assoc J 2009;181:787-96.
16. Eccles M, Freemantle N, Mason J. Using systematic reviews in clinical guideline development. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2008.
17. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2003.
18. Stinnett A, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Making 1998;18:S68-80.
19. Syrett K. NICE and judicial review: enforcing 'accountability for reasonableness' through the courts? Med Law Rev 2008;16:127-40.
20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis - Technology Appraisal TA199. London: NICE, 2010.
21. National Institue for Health and Clinical Excellence. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for rheumatoid arthritis - Technology Appraisal TA72. London: NICE, 2003.
22. Nixon R, Bansback N, Brennan A. The efficacy of inhibiting tumour necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 1 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparisons. Rheumatology 2007;46:1140-7.
23. National Institue for Health and Clinical Excellence. Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis - Technology Appraisal TA130. London: NICE, 2007.
24. National Institue for Health and Clinical Excellence. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritits - Technology Appraisal TA186. London: NICE, 2010.