![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Standard methods for meta-analysis of dose–response data in epidemiology assume a model with a single scalar parameter, such as log-linear relationships between exposure and outcome; such models are implicitly unbounded. In contrast, in pharmacology, multi-parameter models, such as the widely used Emax model, are used to describe relationships that are bounded above and below. We propose methods for estimating the parameters of a dose–response model by meta-analysis of summary data from the results of randomized controlled trials of a drug, in which each trial uses multiple doses of the drug of interest (possibly including dose 0 or placebo). We assume that, for each randomized arm of each trial, the mean and standard error of a continuous response measure and the corresponding allocated dose are available. We consider weighted least squares fitting of the model to the mean and dose pairs from all arms of all studies, and a two-stage procedure in which scalar inverse-variance meta-analysis is performed at each dose, and the dose–response model is fitted to the results by weighted least squares. We then compare these with two further methods inspired by network meta-analysis that fit the model to the contrasts between doses. We illustrate the methods by estimating the parameters of the Emax model to a collection of multi-arm, multiple-dose, randomized controlled trials of alogliptin, a drug for the management of diabetes mellitus, and further examine the properties of the four methods with sensitivity analyses and a simulation study. We find that all four methods produce broadly comparable point estimates for the parameters of most interest, but a single-stage method based on contrasts between doses produces the most appropriate confidence intervals. Although simpler methods may have pragmatic advantages, such as the use of standard software for scalar meta-analysis, more sophisticated methods are nevertheless preferable for their advantages in estimation.
References
| 1. | Tallarida, RJ, Jacob, LS. The dose-response relation in pharmacology, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1979. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 2. | Ferner, R, Aronson, J. Cato Guldberg and Peter Waage, the history of the law of mass action, and its relevance to clinical pharmacology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2015; 81(1): 52–55–52–55. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 3. | Hughes, DA, Aronson, JK. Review: a systematic review and empirical analysis of the relation between dose and duration of drug action. Journal of Clin Pharmacol 2010; 50(1): 17–26. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 4. | Glass, GV . Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976; 5(10): 3–3. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals |
| 5. | DerSimonian, R, Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7(3): 177–188. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 6. | Sattar, N, Preiss, D, Murray, HM Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet 2010; 375(9716): 735–742. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 7. | Stevens, RJ, Roddam, AW, Beral, V. Pancreatic cancer in type 1 and young-onset diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2007; 96(3): 507–509. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 8. | Greenland, S, Longnecker, MP. Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135(11): 1301–1309. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 9. | Wang, X, Ouyang, Y, Liu, J Fruit and vegetable consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ 2014; 349: g4490–g4490. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 10. | Kirby S, Brain P, and Jones B. Fitting Emax models to clinical trial dose response data. Pharm Stat 2010; 10(2): 143–149. Google Scholar |
| 11. | Harbord, RM, Deeks, JJ, Egger, M A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 2007; 8(2): 239–251. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 12. | Jackson, D, Riley, R, White, IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise. Stat Med 2011; 30(20): 2481–2498. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 13. | Lasserson, DS, Buclin, T, Glasziou, P. How quickly should we titrate antihypertensive medication? Systematic review modelling blood pressure response from trial data. Heart 2011; 97(21): 1771–1775. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 14. | Hedges, LV, Olkin, I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis, Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1985. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 15. | Egger, M, Smith, GD, Phillips, AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997; 315(7121): 1533–1537. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 16. | Franchini, AJ, Dias, S, Ades, AE Accounting for correlation in network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3(2): 142–160. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 17. | Dias, S, Sutton, AJ, Ades, AE A generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak 2013; 33(5): 607–617. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 18. | Wandel, S, Jni, P, Tendal, B Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis. BMJ 2010; 341(7775): 711–711. Google Scholar |
| 19. | Higgins, JP, Green, S, Collaboration, C. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2008; Vol. 5, Wiley Online Library. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 20. | Yates, J . A meta-analysis characterizing the doseresponse relationships for three oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24(1): 253–262. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 21. | Aronson, JK, Ferner, RE. Joining the dots: new approach to classifying adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2003; 327(7425): 1222–1222. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 22. | Thomas, N . Hypothesis testing and Bayesian estimation using a sigmoid Emax model applied to sparse dose-response designs. J Biopharm Stat 2006; 16(5): 657–677. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 23. | Raudenbush, SW, Bryk, AS. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods 2002; Vol. 1, Newbury Park, California: Sage. Google Scholar |
| 24. | Gasparrini, A, Armstrong, B, Kenward, MG. Multivariate meta-analysis for non-linear and other multi-parameter associations. Stat Med 2012; 31(29): 3821–3829. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 25. | Schwartz, J, Zanobetti, A. Using meta-smoothing to estimate dose-response trends across multiple studies, with application to air pollution and daily death. Epidemiology 2000; 11(6): 666–672. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
