Skip to Main Content

RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By and clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.

Accept
RTI International
  • About
    • Office Locations
    • Executive Leadership
    • Corporate Governance
    • Partner with Us
      • U.S. Government
      • Clients and Funding Agencies
      • Industry and Commercial Clients
      • Foundations and Associations
      • Bilateral Agencies and Multilateral Banks
      • Universities and Academic Research Institutions
      • Suppliers and Small Businesses
    • Commitment to Quality
      • RTI's Client Listening Program
    • Ethics and Human Research Protection
    • Living Our Mission
    • Veteran Opportunities at RTI

    About

  • Practice Areas
    • Health
      • Public Health and Well-Being
      • Health Care Transformation
      • Behavioral Health
      • Health Behavior Change
      • Precision Medicine
      • RTI Health Solutions (RTI-HS)
      • RTI Center for Community Health Evaluation and Economics Research
      • Health Equity
      • RTI Health Advance
    • Transformative Research Unit for Equity​
      • Equity Capacity Building Hub
      • Social and Economic Justice Research Collaborative
      • Narrative Research and Community Engagement Lab
    • Education and Workforce Development
      • Early Childhood
      • K-12 Education
      • Postsecondary Education
      • Career and Adult Education and Workforce Development
      • Education Policy, Systems, and Governance
      • Education Research Methodologies
      • Education Technologies
    • International Development
      • Energy for Development
      • Environment
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Global Health
      • International Education
      • Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning, and Adapting (MERLA)
      • Youth and Economic Opportunity
      • Building Resilience Against COVID-19 in Developing Countries
      • Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
      • RTI Center for Governance
    • Climate Change
      • Clean Energy Technology and Renewables
      • Climate Finance
      • Climate Justice and Equity
      • Climate Planning, Preparedness and Resilience
      • Climate Policy
      • Climate Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Mitigation
      • Economic Impacts of Climate Change
    • Water
      • Food-Energy-Water Nexus
      • Water Quality
      • WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene)
      • Water Resources Management
    • Energy Research
      • Carbon Capture and Utilization
      • Biomass Conversion
      • Natural Gas
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Industrial Water
      • Syngas Processing
    • Environmental Sciences
      • Air Quality
      • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Urban Sustainability
      • Toxics
      • Climate Change
      • Building Resiliency in the FEW Nexus
      • Climate Change Sciences and Analysis
      • Environmental Policy
      • Environmental Justice
      • Sustainable Materials & Waste Management Solutions
    • Justice Research and Policy
      • RTI Center for Community Safety and Crime Prevention
      • RTI Center for Policing Research and Investigative Science
      • Child Well-Being and Family Strengthening
      • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • Food Security and Agriculture
      • Market Systems Strengthening
      • Food Safety
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Climate-Smart Agriculture
      • Youth in Agriculture
      • Agricultural Innovation
      • Obesity Prevention
    • Innovation Ecosystems
      • Innovation Advising
      • Innovation for Economic Growth
      • Innovation for Emerging and Developing Economies
      • Innovation for Organizations
      • Research, Technology, and Innovation Policy
      • Technology Acceleration
    • Military Support
      • Military Behavioral Health
      • Military Health and Human Performance
      • Military Sexual Assault, Harassment, and Domestic Violence Prevention
      • Wearable Sensor Technologies
      • Military Health System Transformation

    Practice Areas

  • Services + Capabilities
    • Surveys and Data Collection
      • Survey Design
      • Instrument Development
      • Survey Methodologies
      • Data Collection
      • Establishment Surveys
      • Health Registries
      • Data Analysis and Reporting
      • Research Operations Center
    • Statistics and Data Science
      • Survey Statistics
      • Environmental Statistics
      • Coordinating Centers for Multisite Studies
      • Analysis and Design of Complex Data
      • Biostatistics
      • RTI Center for Data Science
    • Evaluation, Assessment and Analysis
      • Evaluation Design and Execution
      • Advanced Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
      • Evaluation, Monitoring, and Assessment
      • Economic Analysis
      • Evaluating Communication Interventions and Campaigns
      • Evidence Synthesis for Policy and Practice
      • Risk Assessment and Prediction
    • Program Design and Implementation
      • Systems Strengthening and Scaling
      • Capacity Assessment and Building
      • Policy Reform Support
      • Curriculum and Teacher Professional Development
      • Interventions and Prevention Programs
      • Implementation Science
    • Digital Solutions for Social Impact
      • Human-Centered Design of Digital Solutions
      • Digital Product Development
      • Digital Communication Campaigns
      • Digital Data Analytics
    • Research Technologies
      • Survey Technologies
      • Data Management and Decision Support Systems
      • Geospatial Science, Technology, and Visualization
      • ICT for Limited-Resource Settings
      • Mobile Applications
      • Web Applications
      • Bioinformatics
      • Interactive Computing
    • Drug Discovery and Development
      • Medicinal Chemistry
      • Molecular Design and Cheminformatics
      • Behavioral Pharmacology
      • Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics (DMPK)
      • In Vitro Pharmacology, Bioassay Development, and High-Throughput Screening (HTS)
      • Isotope Labeling
      • Regulatory Consulting and Support for Medical Products
    • Analytical Laboratory Sciences
      • Bioanalytical and Toxicology Research
      • Forensic Sciences
      • Physicochemical Characterizations
      • Metabolomics
      • Proficiency Testing and Reference Materials
      • Quality Assurance and Regulatory Compliance
      • Microbiology
      • Analytical Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
    • Engineering & Technology R&D
      • Biomedical Technologies
      • Decarbonization Sciences
      • Environmental Exposure & Protection
      • Materials & Environment
      • Sustainable Energy Solutions

    Services + Capabilities

  • Centers
    • RTI Center for Advanced Methods Development
    • RTI Center for Communication Science
      • Communication Research
      • Communication Design
      • Communication Delivery
    • RTI Center for Data Science
    • RTI Center for Education Services
      • Teaching and Learning
      • Education Leadership
      • Peer Learning Networks
      • Strategic Consulting
    • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • RTI Center for Global Noncommunicable Diseases
      • Program Financing & Economics for NCDs
      • Health Systems Strengthening for NCDs
      • Communication Science and Behavior Change for NCDs
      • Implementation Science for NCDs
    • RTI GenOmics, Bioinformatics, and Translational Research Center
      • Disability Studies
      • Ethics
      • Newborn Screening
    • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Water Resources Sectors
      • Water Resources Services
      • Water Resources Tools
    • RTI Center for Governance
    • RTI Global Gender Center
    • North Carolina Center for Optimizing Military Performance
    • NCCU-RTI Center for Applied Research in Environmental Sciences
    • RTI Center for Climate Solutions

    Centers

  • Impact
    • Newsroom
    • Insights Blog
    • Events
    • Publications
    • RTI Press
      • About the RTI Press
      • Instructions for Authors
      • RTI Press Collections
    • Projects
    • Global Reach
      • Asia
      • Eastern Europe and Central Asia
      • RTI International India
      • Africa
      • Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
      • Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

    Impact

  • Experts
    • Our Experts
    • In-Depth With Our Experts
    • Related News
    • Experts In the Media
    • RTI Fellow Program

    Experts

  • Emerging Issues
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Global Health Security
    • Cannabis Research
    • Opioid Research
      • Interventions for Opioid Use Disorders
      • Preventing Opioid Misuse and Overdose
      • Treating Opioid Use Disorders
    • Policing Research and Investigative Science
    • Drone Research and Application
    • E-cigarette Research
    • Zika Virus Research
    • Integrated Governance

    Emerging Issues

  • COVID-19 Research + Response
  • Global Reach
  • Insights Blog
  • Newsroom
  • RTI Press
  • Publications
  • Partner With Us
  • Careers
  • Facebook IconTwitter IconInstagram IconYouTube IconLinkedin Icon
  • Home
  • Impact
  • Publications
  • In reply

In reply

Network meta-analyses are not about a single treatment but about sets of regimens

Maiese, E. M., Ainsworth, C., Le Moine, J., Ahdesmӓki, O., Bell, J., & Hawe, E. (2019). In reply: Network meta-analyses are not about a single treatment but about sets of regimens. Clinical Therapeutics, 41(1), 188-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.11.011

Copy citation

Abstract

In a seeming effort to advance the doublet of carfilzomib + dexamethasone as the preferred treatment option for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, Panjabi and Iskander of Amgen (Amgen, South San Francisco and Thousand Oaks, California) challenge our recent network meta-analysis (NMA) on the comparative efficacy of treatments for previously treated multiple myeloma.1 Considering the paucity and lack of depth of their arguments in addition to the questionable scientific and clinical rationale, we challenge herein Panjabi and Iskander's position that our NMA "should not be used to inform treatment decisions because the analysis was significantly flawed" as well as their innuendo that a carfilzomib-based doublet offers better efficacy than other treatments based on naive, cross-trial comparisons of medians.

Panjabi and Iskander suggest that the trials included in the NMA violated the similarity and consistency of assumptions in NMAs, leading to biased treatment effects. In support, they cite part 2 of the publication from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices, Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparison/Network Meta-analysis Studies.2 That report indeed addresses the issue of similarity but with a caution, citing Fu et al,3 that "no commonly accepted standard [defines] which studies are 'similar enough.'" Panjabi and Iskander do not specify their criteria for similarity, nor do they offer evidence as to how our NMA violated the similarity assumption. Similarly, the ISPOR guideline emphasizes that consistency is a property of direct and indirect evidence for treatment comparisons, not of individual comparisons. However, Panjabi and Iskander seem to assume the latter in their rather singular focus on carfilzomib. As we noted within the Discussion section of the article,1 we concur with the literature that NMAs have limitations—and so does ours. However, just as much and despite these limitations, we concur with the field that there is a distinct need to support clinicians in appraising the comparative efficacy of treatment options based on the available evidence base. The synthesis of trial results through NMA is a well-recognized scientific, clinical, and regulatory approach to enabling broader comparative efficacy questions to be addressed when head-to-head evidence is lacking—and most likely never will exist. As part of the analysis, heterogeneity and consistency analyses were performed and did not show any significant differences or indicate bias. Due to the small size of the network, adjustment for baseline characteristics was inconclusive.

We agree that it would be preferable if an NMA like ours could additionally consider the comparative efficacy of treatments using overall survival and quality of life. However, as Panjabi and Iskander noted, quality of life has been inconsistently reported in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treatment trials, but they fail to acknowledge that this inconsistency makes an NMA evaluating quality of life infeasible. Overall survival data from the CASTOR (Phase 3 Study Comparing Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone [DVd] vs Bortezomib and Dexamethasone [Vd] in Subjects With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma)4 and POLLUX (Phase 3 Study Comparing Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone [DRd] vs Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone [Rd] in Subjects With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma)5 trials were immature at the time of the analysis, with median overall survival not yet reached—which has been sufficiently convincing to scientists, clinicians, and regulators. Further, without patient-level data, differences in complex treatment pathways postprogression across trials cannot be fully addressed, preventing comparison analyses of overall survival across trials adjusted for differential postprogression treatments.

In addition, while we agree that considering safety profiles between treatments is of interest, the feasibility of including safety is limited to only those adverse events that are the same across treatments. For example, if one treatment is associated with a particular adverse event that is not observed with another treatment, then the odds ratio estimated in the NMA would be infinite. The NMA would then not provide a clear comparison of adverse–events profiles, when those profiles differ by treatment. Thus, we agree with Panjabi and Iskander that, in principle and in retrospect, data on quality of life, overall survival, and safety would have been of interest. We disagree, however, that NMAs should be held accountable for what was not or was inconsistently included in the trials. NMAs are about the available evidence, not the desired evidence.

Panjabi and Iskander argue that the UK National Institute of Clinical and Health Excellence (NICE) committee has stated that "capping treatment duration instead of time to progression would reduce Vd [bortezomib plus dexamethasone] efficacy"; however, the evidence review group commissioned by NICE to independently appraise available treatment options noted that the method used to evaluate the reduction in efficacy (matching-adjusted indirect comparison) provided unreliable results.6 Therefore, the evidence review group presented an analysis in which it assumed no reduction in efficacy while capping treatment duration to 8 cycles (italics ours).

In stating that "relative efficacy (PFS [progression-free survival]) of a triplet regimen daratumumab plus Vd (DVd) was compared with a doublet carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Kd)," Panjabi and Iskander seem to imply that the number of agents in a regimen should drive the comparison between therapeutic regimens, not the efficacy that regimens, whether including 2 or 3 agents, may have for a given indication. Our NMA investigated the relative efficacy of treatments that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, including doublet and triplet regimens. Comparisons between doublets and triplets are common and have been included consistently in both trials and NMAs of such trials.7, 8 The general consensus of these comparisons is that triplets achieve better PFS than do doublets.9, 10, 11 Furthermore, we caution Panjabi and Iskander against making naive comparisons of median PFS across trials. In part 1 of its report, the ISPOR Task Force referenced above emphasizes that relative effects are a more appropriate metric.12 The PFS hazard ratio (95% CI) was 0.31 (0.24–0.39) for DVd versus Vd in CASTOR4 and 0.53 (0.44–0.65) for Kd versus Vd in ENDEAVOR (Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone for Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma).13

In relation to the toxicity profile of doublet and triplet therapies, in our NMA, carfilzomib was included in the evidence base as a triplet, carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), using results from the ASPIRE (Phase 3 Study Comparing Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone [KRd] vs Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone [Rd] in Subjects With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma) trial14 and as a doublet, Kd, based on data from the ENDEAVOR trial.13 From the latter, we note that in the Kd arm, patients received twice the dose of carfilzomib (56 mg/m2) than they received in the KRd arm. It would be of interest to investigate whether there is a significant difference between Kd and KRd or other triplets. Furthermore, we note that the percentage of overall adverse events was highly comparable between the Kd and Vd arms in ENDEAVOR (98.3% vs 98.0%, respectively)13 and between the DVd and Vd arms in CASTOR (98.8% and 95.4%).4

Finally, Panjabi and Iskander note that there were "differences in the median PFS for Rd across trials." While we acknowledge that there were some differences in median survival, Panjabi and Iskander seemingly fail to recognize that the approach of NMAs is based on relative differences between PFS values. Similarly, Panjabi and Iskander overlook that we compared baseline characteristics, the results of which are discussed within the article.1 Of note, while differences in some baseline characteristics were observed, a between-trial heterogeneity analysis did not indicate any significant differences between trials—thus rendering this argument by Panjabi and Iskander moot as well.

Our analysis and the conclusions we have drawn are robust and well founded, although we also clearly present the limitations of the analysis. We strongly disagree with Panjabi and Iskander when they state that our NMA "should not be used to inform treatment decisions because the analysis was significantly flawed." Our findings may not be as favorable to carfilzomib as the authors may have wished. However, they are significantly more robust—scientifically, statistically, and clinically—than the broadly generalizing approach taken by Panjabi and Iskander.

In summary, our NMA rigorously shows the comparative efficacy of doublet and triplet regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma. Our conclusions are based on this evidence. In contrast, Panjabi and Iskander have presented, at best, a poorly substantiated dismissal of our NMA in support of a treatment regimen with carfilzomib—evidence for which is wanting.

Download/Explore
Share
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Email

Publications Info

To contact an RTI author, request a report, or for additional information about publications by our experts, send us your request.

  • +1 919 541 8787
  • publications@rti.org

Recent Publications

OCCASIONAL PAPER

Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

OCCASIONAL PAPER

The Preschool Entitlement

OCCASIONAL PAPER

Culturally informed community engagement

Article

Does the relationship between alcohol retail environment and alcohol outcomes vary by depressive symptoms? Findings from a US Survey of Black, Hispanic and White drinkers

RTI Logo
Partner With Us
  • US Government
  • Commercial
  • Foundations & Associations
  • Multilateral Donors
  • Universities
  • Suppliers
Site
  • Privacy Policy
  • Security Policy
  • Site Map
  • Terms of Use
  • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
Contact Us
Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Instagram Icon YouTube Icon Linkedin Icon
delivering the promise of science
for global good
RTI Health Solutions RTI Innovation Advisors RTI Health Advance

© 2023 RTI International. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.