Dataset Information

A frequentist one-step model for a simple network meta-analysis of time-to-event data in presence of an effect modifier

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Individual patient data (IPD) present particular advantages in network meta-analysis (NMA) because interactions may lead an aggregated data (AD)-based model to wrong a treatment effect (TE) estimation. However, fewer works have been conducted for IPD with time-to-event contrary to binary outcomes. We aimed to develop a general frequentist one-step model for evaluating TE in the presence of interaction in a three-node NMA for time-to-event data.

Methods

One-step, frequentist, IPD-based Cox and Poisson generalized linear mixed models were proposed. We simulated a three-node network with or without a closed loop with (1) no interaction, (2) covariate-treatment interaction, and (3) covariate distribution heterogeneity and covariate-treatment interaction. These models were applied to the NMA (Meta-analyses of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] and Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]), which compared the addition of chemotherapy or modified radiotherapy (mRT) to loco-regional treatment with two direct comparisons. AD-based (contrast and meta-regression) models were used as reference.

Results

In the simulated study, no IPD models failed to converge. IPD-based models performed well in all scenarios and configurations with small bias. There were few variations across different scenarios. In contrast, AD-based models performed well when there were no interactions, but demonstrated some bias when interaction existed and a larger one when the modifier was not distributed evenly. While meta-regression performed better than contrast-based only, it demonstrated a large variability in estimated TE. In the real data example, Cox and Poisson IPD-based models gave similar estimations of the model parameters. Interaction decomposition permitted by IPD explained the ecological bias observed in the meta-regression.

Conclusion

The proposed general one-step frequentist Cox and Poisson models had small bias in the evaluation of a three-node network with interactions. They performed as well or better than AD-based models and should also be undertaken whenever possible.

SUBMITTER: Faron M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8559936 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMissing participant outcome data (MOD) are ubiquitous in systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA) as they invade from the inclusion of clinical trials with reported participant losses. There are available strategies to address aggregate MOD, and in particular binary MOD, while considering the missing at random (MAR) assumption as a starting point. Little is known about their performance though regarding the meta-analytic parameters of a random-effects model for aggregate binary outcome data as obtained from trial-reports (i.e. the number of events and number of MOD out of the total randomised per arm).MethodsWe used four strategies to handle binary MOD under MAR and we classified these strategies to those modelling versus excluding/imputing MOD and to those accounting for versus ignoring uncertainty about MAR. We investigated the performance of these strategies in terms of core NMA estimates by performing both an empirical and simulation study using random-effects NMA based on electrical network theory. We used Bland-Altman plots to illustrate the agreement between the compared strategies, and we considered the mean bias, coverage probability and width of the confidence interval to be the frequentist measures of performance.ResultsModelling MOD under MAR agreed with exclusion and imputation under MAR in terms of estimated log odds ratios and inconsistency factor, whereas accountability or not of the uncertainty regarding MOD affected intervention hierarchy and precision around the NMA estimates: strategies that ignore uncertainty about MOD led to more precise NMA estimates, and increased between-trial variance. All strategies showed good performance for low MOD (<5%), consistent evidence and low between-trial variance, whereas performance was compromised for large informative MOD (> 20%), inconsistent evidence and substantial between-trial variance, especially for strategies that ignore uncertainty due to MOD.ConclusionsThe analysts should avoid applying strategies that manipulate MOD before analysis (i.e. exclusion and imputation) as they implicate the inferences negatively. Modelling MOD, on the other hand, via a pattern-mixture model to propagate the uncertainty about MAR assumption constitutes both conceptually and statistically proper strategy to address MOD in a systematic review.