Andrea Messori1, Valeria Fadda2, Dario Maratea2, Sabrina Trippoli2, Roberta Gatto2, Mauro De Rosa3, Claudio Marinai4. 1. HTA Unit, Area Vasta Centro Toscana, Regional Health System, Via San Salvi 12, 50100 Firenze, Italy. 2. HTA Unit, ESTAV Toscana Centro, Regional Health Service, Firenze, Italy. 3. President, SIFACT, Italian Society for Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Milano, Italy. 4. Department of Pharmaceutical Logistics, ESTAV Toscana Centro, Regional Health Service, Firenze, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No equivalence analysis has yet been conducted on the effectiveness of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis. Equivalence testing has a specific scientific interest, but can also be useful for deciding whether acquisition tenders are feasible for the pharmacological agents being compared. METHODS: Our search covered the literature up to August 2014. Our methodology was a combination of standard pairwise meta-analysis, Bayesian network meta-analysis and equivalence testing. The agents examined for their potential equivalence were etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab, and tocilizumab, each in combination with methotrexate (MTX). The reference treatment was MTX monotherapy. The endpoint was ACR50 achievement at 12 months. Odds ratio was the outcome measure. The equivalence margins were established by analyzing the statistical power data of the trials. RESULTS: Our search identified seven randomized controlled trials (2846 patients). No study was retrieved for tocilizumab, and so only four biologics were evaluable. The equivalence range was set at odds ratio from 0.56 to 1.78. There were 10 head-to-head comparisons (4 direct, 6 indirect). Bayesian network meta-analysis estimated the odds ratio (with 90% credible intervals) for each of these comparisons. Between-trial heterogeneity was marked. According to our results, all credible intervals of the 10 comparisons were wide and none of them satisfied the equivalence criterion. A superiority finding was confirmed for the treatment with MTX plus adalimumab or certolizumab in comparison with MTX monotherapy, but not for the other two biologics. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that these four biologics improved the rates of ACR50 achievement, but there was an evident between-study heterogeneity. The head-to-head indirect comparisons between individual biologics showed no significant difference, but failed to demonstrate the proof of no difference (i.e. equivalence). This body of evidence presently precludes any option of undertaking competitive tenderings for the procurement of these agents.
BACKGROUND: No equivalence analysis has yet been conducted on the effectiveness of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis. Equivalence testing has a specific scientific interest, but can also be useful for deciding whether acquisition tenders are feasible for the pharmacological agents being compared. METHODS: Our search covered the literature up to August 2014. Our methodology was a combination of standard pairwise meta-analysis, Bayesian network meta-analysis and equivalence testing. The agents examined for their potential equivalence were etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab, and tocilizumab, each in combination with methotrexate (MTX). The reference treatment was MTX monotherapy. The endpoint was ACR50 achievement at 12 months. Odds ratio was the outcome measure. The equivalence margins were established by analyzing the statistical power data of the trials. RESULTS: Our search identified seven randomized controlled trials (2846 patients). No study was retrieved for tocilizumab, and so only four biologics were evaluable. The equivalence range was set at odds ratio from 0.56 to 1.78. There were 10 head-to-head comparisons (4 direct, 6 indirect). Bayesian network meta-analysis estimated the odds ratio (with 90% credible intervals) for each of these comparisons. Between-trial heterogeneity was marked. According to our results, all credible intervals of the 10 comparisons were wide and none of them satisfied the equivalence criterion. A superiority finding was confirmed for the treatment with MTX plus adalimumab or certolizumab in comparison with MTX monotherapy, but not for the other two biologics. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that these four biologics improved the rates of ACR50 achievement, but there was an evident between-study heterogeneity. The head-to-head indirect comparisons between individual biologics showed no significant difference, but failed to demonstrate the proof of no difference (i.e. equivalence). This body of evidence presently precludes any option of undertaking competitive tenderings for the procurement of these agents.
Authors: Ferdinand C Breedveld; Michael H Weisman; Arthur F Kavanaugh; Stanley B Cohen; Karel Pavelka; Ronald van Vollenhoven; John Sharp; John L Perez; George T Spencer-Green Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2006-01
Authors: Paul Emery; Ferdinand C Breedveld; Stephen Hall; Patrick Durez; David J Chang; Deborah Robertson; Amitabh Singh; Ronald D Pedersen; Andrew S Koenig; Bruce Freundlich Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alessandro Montedori; Maria Isabella Bonacini; Giovanni Casazza; Maria Laura Luchetta; Piergiorgio Duca; Francesco Cozzolino; Iosief Abraha Journal: Trials Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Edward Keystone; Désireé van der Heijde; David Mason; Robert Landewé; Ronald Van Vollenhoven; Bernard Combe; Paul Emery; Vibeke Strand; Philip Mease; Chintu Desai; Karel Pavelka Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-11
Authors: Victoria Bejarano; Mark Quinn; Philip G Conaghan; Richard Reece; Anne-Maree Keenan; David Walker; Andrew Gough; Michael Green; Dennis McGonagle; Ade Adebajo; Stephen Jarrett; Sheelagh Doherty; Lesley Hordon; Richard Melsom; Kristina Unnebrink; Hartmut Kupper; Paul Emery Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-10-15
Authors: Miyoung Choi; Min Kyung Hyun; Seongmi Choi; Ha Jin Tchoe; Sung Yeon Lee; Kyeong Min Son; Min-Jeong Kim; Young Ok Jung; Hyun Ah Kim Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 2.884