...
首页> 外文期刊>CNS drugs >Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?
【24h】

Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?

机译:可以匹配调整后的间接比较方法缓解Brivaracetam和Levetiracetam的辅助试验中患者人群的安慰剂响应差异吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background and objective Patients with focal seizures recruited into adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) trials have become more refractory and severe over time; concurrently, placebo responses have increased. To attempt to account for heterogeneity among trials, propensity-score weighted patient-level data were used to indirectly compare placebo responses reported in brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials. Methods Patient-level data from randomised, placebo-controlled brivaracetam (recruited 2007–2014) and levetiracetam (1993–1998) trials were pooled. Consistent inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied and outcomes were defined consistently. Potentially confounding baseline characteristics were adjusted for using propensity score weighting. Weighting success was assessed using placebo response. Results In total, 707 and 473 active drug and 399 and 253 placebo patients comprised the brivaracetam and levetiracetam groups, respectively. Before weighting, several baseline variables were significantly different between groups; after weighting, prior vagal nerve stimulation, co-morbid depression and co-morbid anxiety remained different. Before weighting, median seizure frequency reduction was 21.7 and 3.9% in the brivaracetam and levetiracetam placebo arms, respectively; after weighting, median reduction was 15.0 and 6.0%. The comparison of non-randomised groups could be biased by unobserved confounding factors and region of residence. Lifetime AED history was unavailable in the brivaracetam trials and excluded from analysis. Conclusions Placebo responses remained different between brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials after propensity score weighting, indicating the presence of residual confounding factors associated with placebo response in these trials. It therefore remains problematic to conduct reliable indirect comparisons of brivaracetam and levetiracetam given the current evidence base, which may apply to comparisons between other AED trials. ]]>
机译:摘要背景和目标患者招募入辅助抗癫痫药物(AED)试验已经变得更加难治和严重;同时,安慰剂反应增加。为了试图考虑试验之间的异质性,倾向于分数加权患者级数据用于间接比较Brivaracetam和Levetiracetam试验中报告的安慰剂反应。方法汇集来自随机,安慰剂控制的Brivaracetam(招聘2007-2014)和Levetiracetam(1993-1998)试验的患者水平数据。应用一致的夹杂物/排除标准,并始终定义结果。使用倾向得分加权来调节潜在混淆的基线特性。使用安慰剂响应评估加权成功。结果总共707和473个活性药物和399和253名安慰剂患者分别包含Brivaracetam和Levetiracetam组。在加权之前,在组之间有几个基线变量显着差异;在加权后,先前的迷走神经刺激,共同病态抑郁和共同病态焦虑仍然不同。在加权之前,Brivaracetam和Levetiracetam Placebo Arms的中值癫痫发作频率降低为21.7和3.9%;加权后,中位数为15.0%和6.0%。非随机组的比较可以通过不观察到的混杂因素和居住地区偏见。在Brivaracetam试验中,终身AED历史不可用,并排除在分析之外。结论Brivaracetam和Levetiracetam试验在倾向评分后的试验之间的安慰剂反应仍然不同,表明在这些试验中存在与安慰剂反应相关的残留混杂因子。因此,鉴于当前证据基础,对Brivaracetam和Levetiracetam的可靠间接比较进行了有问题的是有问题的,这可能适用于其他AED试验之间的比较。 ]]>

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号