Impact of methodological choices in comparative effectiveness studies: application in natalizumab versus fingolimod comparison among patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract Background Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled

Impact of methodological choices in comparative effectiveness studies: application in natalizumab versus fingolimod comparison among patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract Background Natalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies. Methods Data from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed. Results Overall, 5,148 relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption. Conclusions This applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled

Next-generation ARIA care pathways for rhinitis and asthma: a model for multimorbid chronic diseases

Abstract Background In all societies, the burden and cost of allergic and chronic respiratory diseases are increasing rapidly. Most economies are struggling to deliver modern health care effectively. There is a need to support the transformation of the health care system into integrated care with organizational health literacy. Main body As an example for chronic disease care, MASK (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK), a new project of the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative, and POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis, EIT Health), in collaboration with professional and patient organizations in the field of allergy and airway diseases, are proposing real-life ICPs centred around the patient with rhinitis, and using mHealth to monitor environmental exposure. Three aspects of care pathways are being developed: (i) Patient participation, health literacy and self-care through technology-assisted “patient activation”, (ii) Implementation of care pathways by pharmacists and (iii) Next-generation guidelines assessing the recommendations of GRADE guidelines in rhinitis and asthma using real-world evidence (RWE) obtained through mobile technology. The EU and global political agendas are of great importance in supporting the digital transformation of health and care, and MASK has been recognized by DG Santé as a Good Practice in the field of digitally-enabled, integrated, person-centred care. Conclusion In 20 years, ARIA has considerably evolved from the first multimorbidity guideline in respiratory diseases to the digital transformation of health and care with a strong political involvement