THE IMPORTANCE OF TREATMENT CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ACCOUNT FOR CONCOMITANT TREATMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF A NETWORK META-ANALYSIS COMPARING PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENTS FOR CHRONIC HEART FAILURE

Author(s)

Burnett H1, Cope S1, Vieira MC2, Sagkriotis A3, Senni M4, Deschaseaux C3
1Mapi, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2Novartis Pharma, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, USA, East Hanover, NJ, USA, 3Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland, 4Scompenso e Trapianti di Cuore, Bergamo, Italy

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to assess the comparative efficacy of recommended treatment for chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in terms of all-cause mortality based on a network met-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore the impact of alternative treatment classifications depending on concomitant treatments. METHODS A systematic literature search identified 56 relevant RCTs (1980-2013) that reported mortality data that were synthesized using a Bayesian Poisson regression NMA model. Treatments were classified as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), mineralocorticoid/aldosterone receptor antagonists (MRA) and the Ifchannel inhibitor (IF) ivabradine. Analysis 1 classified treatments according to the main drugs of interest, whereas Analysis 2 defined treatments according to the main drugs of interest as well as the concomitant treatments belonging to classes of interest if more than 50% of patients were taking concomitant drugs. RESULTS Six regimens were compared in Analysis 1 and 10 regimens were compared in Analysis 2.  Analysis 1 resulted in the following rate ratios (RR) versus placebo: ACEI: 0.81 (95% Credible Interval 0.61, 0.95); BB: 0.71 (0.60, 0.80); ARB: 0.90 (0.75, 1.02); ACEI+BB: 0.48 (0.30, 0.76). Analysis 2 resulted in the following RRs versus placebo: ACEI: 0.81 (0.68, 0.95); BB: 0.57 (0.35, 0.87); ARB: 0.81 (0.61, 1.01); ACEI+BB: 0.61 (0.54, 0.68). The treatments that are expected to be most efficacious depended on the treatment classification: Analysis 1 supported ACEI+BB and BB, whereas Analysis 2 supported ACEI+BB+MRA+IF and ACEI+BB+MRA [RR: 0.44 (0.34, 0.58) and 0.48 (0.38, 0.60), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS Combination treatments were likely to be more efficacious than monotherapy and adding a class to a regimen was likely to make it more efficacious regardless of the approach. However, treatment classifications affect the results and interpretation. The approach that accounts for concomitant treatments is preferred.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2014-11, ISPOR Europe 2014, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Value in Health, Vol. 17, No. 7 (November 2014)

Code

CV1

Topic

Clinical Outcomes

Topic Subcategory

Clinical Outcomes Assessment

Disease

Cardiovascular Disorders

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


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

×