The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Choice of methodology impacts outcome in indirect comparisons of drugs for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Choice of methodology impacts outcome in indirect comparisons of drugs for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Choice of methodology impacts outcome in indirect comparisons of drugs for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Background and Objectives: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic condition leading to lung damage and deterioration in lung function. Following the availability of two new drugs, nintedanib and pirfenidone, a number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) of randomised controlled trials have been published which have conducted indirect comparisons on the two drugs. Differing recommendations from these studies are potentially confusing to clinicians and decision-makers. We aimed to systematically review published NMAs of IPF treatments, to compare their findings and summarise key recommendations. Materials and Methods: We systematically reviewed (PROSPERO: CRD42017072876) six eligible NMAs and investigated the differences in their findings with respect to key endpoints. We focused on differences in head-to-head comparisons between nintedanib and pirfenidone. Results: The NMAs were broadly consistent, with most differences being explained by model choice, endpoint definitions, inclusion of different studies, different follow-up durations, and access to unpublished data. A substantive difference remained, however, in the change from baseline forced vital capacity (FVC). One NMA favoured nintedanib, another found no statistical difference, whilst others did not conduct the analysis. These differences can be attributed to the choice of methodology, the use of the standardised mean difference (SMD) scale, and population heterogeneity. Conclusions: NMA methods facilitated the comparison of nintedanib and pirfenidone in the absence of a head-to-head trial. However, further work is needed to determine whether the trial populations are homogeneous and whether the SMD is appropriate in this population. Differences in patient characteristics may obscure the difference in treatment effects. To assist decision-makers, an exploration of efficacy in real-world populations may be prudent.

Bias, Humans, Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis/drug therapy, Indoles/standards, Pyridones/standards, Research Design/standards, Treatment Outcome
1010-660X
443
Scott, David A.
19b5fd34-9974-4ae4-8be0-27a693639e20
Loveman, Emma
06ff1bf1-0189-4330-b22d-f5a917e9871d
Colquitt, Jill L
b5872647-bc73-47d1-be44-8d1170eddbc6
O'Reilly, Katherine
05c7174f-1231-45d7-b303-a499ebe2e34d
Scott, David A.
19b5fd34-9974-4ae4-8be0-27a693639e20
Loveman, Emma
06ff1bf1-0189-4330-b22d-f5a917e9871d
Colquitt, Jill L
b5872647-bc73-47d1-be44-8d1170eddbc6
O'Reilly, Katherine
05c7174f-1231-45d7-b303-a499ebe2e34d

Scott, David A., Loveman, Emma, Colquitt, Jill L and O'Reilly, Katherine (2019) Choice of methodology impacts outcome in indirect comparisons of drugs for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Medicina, 55 (8), 443. (doi:10.3390/medicina55080443).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic condition leading to lung damage and deterioration in lung function. Following the availability of two new drugs, nintedanib and pirfenidone, a number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) of randomised controlled trials have been published which have conducted indirect comparisons on the two drugs. Differing recommendations from these studies are potentially confusing to clinicians and decision-makers. We aimed to systematically review published NMAs of IPF treatments, to compare their findings and summarise key recommendations. Materials and Methods: We systematically reviewed (PROSPERO: CRD42017072876) six eligible NMAs and investigated the differences in their findings with respect to key endpoints. We focused on differences in head-to-head comparisons between nintedanib and pirfenidone. Results: The NMAs were broadly consistent, with most differences being explained by model choice, endpoint definitions, inclusion of different studies, different follow-up durations, and access to unpublished data. A substantive difference remained, however, in the change from baseline forced vital capacity (FVC). One NMA favoured nintedanib, another found no statistical difference, whilst others did not conduct the analysis. These differences can be attributed to the choice of methodology, the use of the standardised mean difference (SMD) scale, and population heterogeneity. Conclusions: NMA methods facilitated the comparison of nintedanib and pirfenidone in the absence of a head-to-head trial. However, further work is needed to determine whether the trial populations are homogeneous and whether the SMD is appropriate in this population. Differences in patient characteristics may obscure the difference in treatment effects. To assist decision-makers, an exploration of efficacy in real-world populations may be prudent.

Text
medicina-55-00443 (1) - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (638kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 30 July 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 6 August 2019
Published date: August 2019
Keywords: Bias, Humans, Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis/drug therapy, Indoles/standards, Pyridones/standards, Research Design/standards, Treatment Outcome

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 440865
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/440865
ISSN: 1010-660X
PURE UUID: 0ada8962-f298-44a6-a55d-cfbb6fd1b582
ORCID for David A. Scott: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6475-8046

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 21 May 2020 16:30
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:02

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: David A. Scott ORCID iD
Author: Emma Loveman
Author: Jill L Colquitt
Author: Katherine O'Reilly

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×