RANKING OF TREATMENTS IN MULTI-LEVEL NETWORK META-REGRESSION (ML-NMR): INCORPORATING MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES

Author(s)

Tristan Curteis, MSc1, Augustine Wigle, PhD2, Christopher Michaels, PhD3, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, PhD4.
1Head of Statistics, Costello Medical, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 3Costello Medical, London, United Kingdom, 4Department of Hygiene, Social and Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
OBJECTIVES: In NMA, ranking metrics (e.g., probability best and Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve [SUCRAs]) often ignore relative effect magnitude, which may mislead medical and HTA decision-making by prioritising statistically different, but clinically comparable, treatments. Methods to adjust for minimally important differences (MID) in ranking metrics have been proposed for NMA. Despite supporting interpretation when a shifted null hypothesis may be useful or required (as per, in certain cases, EU Joint Clinical Assessment [JCA] indirect treatment comparison guidance), software for implementation of these methods is not available for ML-NMR, a method for population-adjustment in NMA.
METHODS: We extended the R package mid.rank.nma (an extension of multinma) to apply the MID-based treatment ranking methodology developed for Bayesian NMA by Curteis et al. (2025) to ML-NMR. As a proof-of-concept example, we applied mid.rank.nma to an ML-NMR in plaque psoriasis. Specifically, IXORA‐S demonstrated superiority of ixekizumab Q2W over ustekinumab based on a non-inferiority margin of -12.6% of difference in risk of PASI 90, assuming a 43% response rate for ustekinumab. We applied the same margin (converted to the logit scale) to generate IXORA‐S population-specific MID-adjusted ranking statistics from an ML-NMR of 7 treatments across 9 studies in achieving PASI 90.
RESULTS: Even accounting for an MID of -12.6% of difference in risk of PASI 90, ixekizumab Q2W retained a 100% probability of being best or equal best. With no MID, ixekizumab Q4W, secukinumab 300 mg, secukinumab 150 mg and ustekinumab had distinct median ranks 2 to 5 respectively. However, with MID adjustment, ixekizumab Q4W and secukinumab 300mg (equal median rank 2.5), and secukinumab 150 mg and ustekinumab (equal median rank 4.5), were tied.
CONCLUSIONS: The R package mid.rank.nma now supports MID-adjusted ranking statistics for ML-NMR, facilitating MID-adjusted treatment ranking metrics to inform decision making in a population-adjusted context.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria

Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S

Code

MSR234

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Methodological & Statistical Research, Study Approaches

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Sensory System Disorders (Ear, Eye, Dental, Skin)

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×