Overview of methods for comparing the efficacies of drugs in the absence of head-to-head clinical trial data

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 77, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 116-121

  Kim, Hansoo ^a   Gurrin, Lyle ^a   Ademi, Zanfina ^a,b   Liew, Danny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

adjusted indirect comparison; mixed treatment comparison; na ve direct comparison

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; EXENDIN 4; GLUCOSE; HEMOGLOBIN A1C; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; INSULIN; PLACEBO; SITAGLIPTIN; DRUG;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG SAFETY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; LOW DRUG DOSE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISON; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REIMBURSEMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84891059543     PISSN: 03065251     EISSN: 13652125     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12150     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Sherifali D, Nerenberg K, Pullenayegum E, Chen JE, Gerstein HC,. The effect of oral antidiabetic agents on A1C levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2010; 33: 1859-1864.
2. 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: 683-691.
3. PBAC. Australian Department of Health and Ageing: Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), Australian Department of Health and Ageing, Editor 2008: Canberra, Australia.
4. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, N.I.f.H.a.C. Excellence, Editor 2008.
5. Well GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D,. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in meta-Analysis, C.A.f.D.a.T.i. Health, Editor 2009.
6. CADTH. Indirect Treatment Comparison Calculator. Quebec: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2009.
7. FDA. Guidance for Industry: Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials. Rockville: US Food and Drug Administration, 2010.
8. Kim H, Gurrin L, Liew D,. Sitagliptin compared to biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 in type 2 diabetic patients who have failed combination therapy with metformin and a sulphonylurea: an indirect comparison. in IDF-WPR 2010. 2010. Busan, South Korea: International Diabetes Federation.
9. Mills EJ, Rachlis B, O'Regan C, Thabane L, Perri D,. Metastatic renal cell cancer treatments: an indirect comparison meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2009; 9: 34.
10. Lu G, Ades AE,. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3105-3124.
11. Ribeiro RA, Ziegelmann PK, Duncan BB, Stella SF, da Costa Vieira JL, Restelatto LMF, Moriguchi EH, Polanczyk CA,. Impact of statin dose on major cardiovascular events: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis involving more than 175,000 patients. Int J Cardiol 2012; 166 (2): 431-439.
12. MRC. WinBUGS. 1989 Available at http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/ winbugs/contents.shtml (last accessed January 2012).