Systematic review with network meta-analysis: the impact of medical interventions for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis on health-related quality of life

Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 48, Issue 11-12, 2018, Pages 1174-1185

  Paschos, Paschalis ^a,b   Katsoula, Anastasia ^a   Salanti, Georgia ^c   Giouleme, Olga ^a   Athanasiadou, Eleni ^a   Tsapas, Apostolos ^a,d  

^a ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

^b PAPAGEORGIOU GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Greece)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADALIMUMAB; GOLIMUMAB; INFLIXIMAB; PLACEBO; TOFACITINIB; VEDOLIZUMAB; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENT; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; PIPERIDINE DERIVATIVE; PYRIMIDINE DERIVATIVE; PYRROLE DERIVATIVE;

DISEASE SEVERITY; HUMAN; MAINTENANCE THERAPY; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SHORT FORM 36; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ULCERATIVE COLITIS; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; PSYCHOLOGY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

ADALIMUMAB; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL, HUMANIZED; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS; COLITIS, ULCERATIVE; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENTS; HUMANS; INFLIXIMAB; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; PIPERIDINES; PYRIMIDINES; PYRROLES; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 85055654507     PISSN: 02692813     EISSN: 13652036     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15005     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R, et al. Third European Evidence-Based Consensus on Diagnosis and Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Part 1: definitions, diagnosis, extra-intestinal manifestations, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11:649-670.
2. Food and Drug Administration. Ulcerative Colitis: Clinical Trial Endpoints Guidance for Industry. 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM515143.pdf. Accessed 5 October 2017.
3. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Sandborn W, Sands BE, et al. Selecting therapeutic targets in inflammatory bowel disease (STRIDE): determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1324-1338.
4. LeBlanc K, Mosli MH, Parker CE, et al. The impact of biological interventions for ulcerative colitis on health-related quality of life. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD008655.
5. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:80-97.
6. Caldwell DM. An overview of conducting systematic reviews with network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2014;3:109.
7. Bonovas S, Lytras T, Nikolopoulos G, et al. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative assessment of tofacitinib and biological therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47:454-465.
8. Danese S, Fiorino G, Peyrin-Biroulet L, et al. Biological agents for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:704-711.
9. Thorlund K, Druyts E, Toor K, et al. Comparative efficacy of golimumab, infliximab, and adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis accounting for differences in trial designs. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9:693-700.
10. Singh S, Fumery M, Sandborn WJ, et al. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: first- and second-line pharmacotherapy for moderate-severe ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47:162-175.
11. Vickers AD, Ainsworth C, Mody R, et al. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of biologics in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0165435.
12. D'Haens G, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. A review of activity indices and efficacy end points for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:763-786.
13. D'Haens G, Feagan B, Colombel J-F, et al. Challenges to the design, execution, and analysis of randomized controlled trials for inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:1461-1469.
14. Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Savović J, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In: Chandler J, McKenzie J, Boutron IWV, eds. Cochrane Methods. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;10(Suppl 1). https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool
15. White IR. Network meta-analysis. Stata J. 2015;15:951-985.
16. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, et al. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:818-827.
17. Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JPT. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:52-60.
18. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, et al. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e99682.
19. Chaimani A, Higgins JPT, Mavridis D, et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e76654.
20. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Visualizing assumptions and results in network meta-analysis: the network graphs package. Stata J. 2015;15:905-950.
21. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, et al. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29:932-944.
22. Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barrett JK, et al. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:98-110.
23. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. Inconsistency in Networks of Evidence Based on Randomised Controlled Trials [Internet]. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2014.
24. CINeMA: Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis [Software]. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, 2017. cinema.ispm.ch
25. A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Infliximab in Chinese Subjects With Active Ulcerative Colitis. NCT01551290. http://filehosting.pharmacm.com/DownloadService.ashx?client=CTR_JNJ_7051&studyxml:id=3324&filename=REMICADEUCO3001-Synopsis.pdf Accessed October 10 2017.
26. Hibi T, Imai Y, Senoo A, et al. Efficacy and safety of golimumab 52-week maintenance therapy in Japanese patients with moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis: a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study-(PURSUIT-J study). J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:1101-1111.
27. Rutgeerts P, Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, et al. Infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2462-2476.
28. Probert CSJ, Hearing SD, Schreiber S, et al. Infliximab in moderately severe glucocorticoid resistant ulcerative colitis: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2003;52:998-1002.
29. Reinisch W, Sandborn WJ, Hommes DW, et al. Adalimumab for induction of clinical remission in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results of a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2011;60:780-787.
30. Sandborn WJ, van Assche G, Reinisch W, et al. Adalimumab induces and maintains clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;142:253-257.
31. Suzuki Y, Motoya S, Hanai H, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in Japanese patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol. 2014;49:283-294.
32. Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Marano C, et al. Subcutaneous golimumab induces clinical response and remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:85-95.
33. Feagan BG, Rutgeerts P, Sands BE, et al. Vedolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:699-710.
34. Sandborn WJ, Ghosh S, Panes J, et al. Tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, in active ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:616-624.
35. Sandborn WJ, Su C, Sands BE, et al. Tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1723-1736.
36. Archer R, Tappenden P, Ren S, et al. Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis after the failure of conventional therapy (including a review of TA140 and TA262): clinical effectiveness systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20:1-326.
37. Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1625-1629.
38. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163-171.
39. Efthimiou O, Debray TPA, van Valkenhoef G, et al. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7:236-263.
40. McColl E, Han SW, Barton JR, et al. A comparison of the discriminatory power of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and the SF-36 in people with ulcerative colitis. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:805-811.
41. 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument. https://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form/survey-instrument.html. Accessed 10 November 2017.
42. Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ, et al. A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:804-810.
43. ® Health Survey. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12:600-609.