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