Search

In multivariate network meta‐analysis (NMA), the piecemeal nature of the evidence base means that there may be treatment‐outcome combinations for which no data is available. Most existing multivariate evidence synthesis models are either unable to estimate the missing treatment‐outcome combinations, or can only do so under particularly strong assumptions, such as perfect between‐study correlations between outcomes or constant effect size across outcomes. Many existing implementations are also limited to two treatments or two outcomes, or rely on model specification that is heavily tailored to the dimensions of the dataset. We present a Bayesian multivariate NMA model that estimates the missing treatment‐outcome combinations via mappings between the population mean effects, while allowing the study‐specific effects to be imperfectly correlated. The method is designed for aggregate‐level data (rather than individual patient data) and is likely to be useful when modeling multiple sparsely reported outcomes, or when varying definitions of the same underlying outcome are adopted by different studies. We implement the model via a novel decomposition of the treatment effect variance, which can be specified efficiently for an arbitrary dataset given some basic assumptions regarding the correlation structure. The method is illustrated using data concerning the efficacy and liver‐related safety of eight active treatments for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis. The results indicate that fingolimod and interferon beta‐1b are the most efficacious treatments but also have some of the worst effects on liver safety. Dimethyl fumarate and glatiramer acetate perform reasonably on all of the efficacy and safety outcomes in the model.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit–risk assessment. Methods Eight case studies based on the benefit–risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit–risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies. Results A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination. Conclusions Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit–risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit–risk assessment from multiple perspectives. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

While benefit-risk assessment is a key component of the drug development and maintenance process, it is often described in a narrative. In contrast, structured benefit-risk assessment builds on established ideas from decision analysis and comprises a qualitative framework and quantitative methodology. We compare two such frameworks, applying multi-criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) within the PrOACT-URL framework and weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB), within the BRAT framework. These are applied to a case study of natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. We focus on the practical considerations of applying these methods and give recommendations for visual presentation of results. In the case study, we found structured benefit-risk analysis to be a useful tool for structuring, quantifying, and communicating the relative benefit and safety profiles of drugs in a transparent, rational and consistent way. The two frameworks were similar. MCDA is a generic and flexible methodology that can be used to perform a structured benefit-risk in any common context. wNCB is a special case of MCDA and is shown to be equivalent to an extension of the number needed to treat (NNT) principle. It is simpler to apply and understand than MCDA and can be applied when all outcomes are measured on a binary scale.