Validating the Assumptions of Population Adjustment: Application of Multilevel Network Meta-regression to a Network of Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis
David M. Phillippo,
Sofia Dias,
A. E. Ades,
Mark Belger,
Alan Brnabic,
Daniel Saure,
Yves Schymura and
Nicky J. Welton
Additional contact information
David M. Phillippo: University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Sofia Dias: University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
A. E. Ades: University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Mark Belger: Lilly UK, Windlesham, Surrey, UK
Alan Brnabic: Eli Lilly Australia Pty. Limited, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Daniel Saure: Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Hessen, Germany
Yves Schymura: Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Hessen, Germany
Nicky J. Welton: University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Medical Decision Making, 2023, vol. 43, issue 1, 53-67
Abstract:
Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) and indirect comparisons combine aggregate data (AgD) from multiple studies on treatments of interest but may give biased estimates if study populations differ. Population adjustment methods such as multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR) aim to reduce bias by adjusting for differences in study populations using individual patient data (IPD) from 1 or more studies under the conditional constancy assumption. A shared effect modifier assumption may also be necessary for identifiability. This article aims to demonstrate how the assumptions made by ML-NMR can be assessed in practice to obtain reliable treatment effect estimates in a target population. Methods We apply ML-NMR to a network of evidence on treatments for plaque psoriasis with a mix of IPD and AgD trials reporting ordered categorical outcomes. Relative treatment effects are estimated for each trial population and for 3 external target populations represented by a registry and 2 cohort studies. We examine residual heterogeneity and inconsistency and relax the shared effect modifier assumption for each covariate in turn. Results Estimated population-average treatment effects were similar across study populations, as differences in the distributions of effect modifiers were small. Better fit was achieved with ML-NMR than with NMA, and uncertainty was reduced by explaining within- and between-study variation. We found little evidence that the conditional constancy or shared effect modifier assumptions were invalid. Conclusions ML-NMR extends the NMA framework and addresses issues with previous population adjustment approaches. It coherently synthesizes evidence from IPD and AgD studies in networks of any size while avoiding aggregation bias and noncollapsibility bias, allows for key assumptions to be assessed or relaxed, and can produce estimates relevant to a target population for decision-making. Highlights Multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR) extends the network meta-analysis framework to synthesize evidence from networks of studies providing individual patient data or aggregate data while adjusting for differences in effect modifiers between studies (population adjustment). We apply ML-NMR to a network of treatments for plaque psoriasis with ordered categorical outcomes. We demonstrate for the first time how ML-NMR allows key assumptions to be assessed. We check for violations of conditional constancy of relative effects (such as unobserved effect modifiers) through residual heterogeneity and inconsistency and the shared effect modifier assumption by relaxing this for each covariate in turn. Crucially for decision making, population-adjusted treatment effects can be produced in any relevant target population. We produce population-average estimates for 3 external target populations, represented by the PsoBest registry and the PROSPECT and Chiricozzi 2019 cohort studies.
Keywords: effect modification; indirect comparison; individual patient data; network meta-analysis; population adjustment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221117162 (text/html)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:53-67
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221117162
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().