Nazareth Tara, Hart Erin M, Ronnebaum Sarah M, Mehta Sandhya, Patel Dipen A, Kötter Ina
Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Pharmerit - an OPEN Health Company, New York, NY, USA.
Open Access Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 21;12:323-335. doi: 10.2147/OARRR.S277036. eCollection 2020.
Oral ulcers are the cardinal manifestation in Behçet's disease (BD). The 2018 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations describe treatments for BD-associated oral ulcers with mucocutaneous involvement; however, little comparative effectiveness information for these agents is available. In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) could provide useful evidence regarding comparative effectiveness of BD treatments. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative systematic literature review (SLR) and similarity assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the oral ulcer-related efficacy outcomes of EULAR-recommended treatments for BD-associated oral ulcers to determine the feasibility of an ITC.
An SLR was performed to identify relevant RCTs indexed in MEDLINE/Embase before May 29, 2019. RCT similarities for the ITC were assessed based on a step-wise process recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
In total, 317 articles were identified, of which 14 RCTs, reflecting 11 EULAR-recommended treatments, were evaluated in a similarity assessment. Number of oral ulcers, resolution of oral ulcers, and healing time for oral ulcers were identified as the possible oral ulcer-related outcomes. After completing the similarity assessment of these outcomes, it was determined that a robust ITC was infeasible for the three oral ulcer-related outcomes due to heterogeneity in outcomes reporting, study design, and/or patient characteristics. More broadly, the results underscore the need for and consistent use of standardized measures for oral ulcer outcomes to facilitate comparative research.
In the absence of head-to-head RCTs and infeasibility of quantitative ITC, comparative assessments for BD-associated oral ulcers are limited, including comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evaluations. Healthcare decision-makers must continue to base treatment decisions on the extent and strength of available evidence (eg, robust RCTs), clinical guidelines, real-world experience, and patient considerations.
口腔溃疡是白塞病(BD)的主要表现。2018年欧洲抗风湿病联盟(EULAR)的建议描述了针对伴有黏膜皮肤受累的BD相关口腔溃疡的治疗方法;然而,关于这些药物的比较有效性信息很少。在缺乏直接对比试验的情况下,间接治疗比较(ITC)可为BD治疗的比较有效性提供有用证据。本研究的目的是对调查EULAR推荐的BD相关口腔溃疡治疗方法的口腔溃疡相关疗效结果的随机对照试验(RCT)进行比较系统的文献综述(SLR)和相似性评估,以确定ITC的可行性。
进行SLR以识别2019年5月29日前MEDLINE/Embase中索引的相关RCT。基于国际药物经济学和结果研究协会推荐的逐步过程评估ITC的RCT相似性。
共识别出317篇文章,其中14项RCT(反映11种EULAR推荐的治疗方法)在相似性评估中进行了评估。口腔溃疡数量、口腔溃疡消退情况和口腔溃疡愈合时间被确定为可能的口腔溃疡相关结果。在完成这些结果的相似性评估后,由于结果报告、研究设计和/或患者特征的异质性,确定对这三个口腔溃疡相关结果进行有力的ITC是不可行的。更广泛地说,结果强调了对口腔溃疡结果采用标准化测量方法并持续使用的必要性,以促进比较研究。
在缺乏直接对比RCT且定量ITC不可行的情况下,对BD相关口腔溃疡的比较评估有限,包括比较有效性和成本效益评估。医疗保健决策者必须继续根据现有证据(如有力的RCT)的程度和强度、临床指南、实际经验和患者考虑因素来做出治疗决策。