Multivariate network meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of acute bipolar mania: a bayesian approach using lognormal prior distribution
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Conventional Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of multiple outcomes are performed using non-informative prior distribution, independently for each outcome. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate pharmacological intervention effects against placebo within a multivariate Bayesian framework using an informative lognormal prior distribution. METHODS: 13,188 participants were evaluated for two dichotomous study outcomes, namely, treatment response and all-cause dropouts, in 57 double-blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of acute bipolar mania (ABM) in adults. Both the study outcomes were measured from baseline to week 3. 10 pharmacological drugs or interventions consisted of mood stabilizers, anti-psychotics, antidepressants, combinations of the above and other agents, and were compared against each other as well as with placebo either as monotherapy or add on agents. These treatments include placebo, aripiprazole, haloperidol, quetiapine, ziprasidone, olanzapine, divalproex, paliperidone, carbamazepine, lithium; and lamotrigine. Aggregated arm-based data on both the study outcomes were considered. We used the logit scale to model the probability of event occurrence and adopted multivariate modelling approach; wherein both the study outcomes were included in a single NMA model. Further, the between-study variance-covariance matrix was decomposed using the Cholesky and spherical decomposition techniques and the results were compared. The deviance information criterion (DIC) indices were used to assess the model fit. Analyses included 16,00,000 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) iterations with 6,00,000 burn-in period and thinning of 100; tested by running three chains with different starting values. All the analyses were carried out in WinBUGS software. RESULTS: Under Cholesky and spherical decompositions, the correlation between the study outcomes were estimated as -0.51 (-0.68, -0.29) and -0.56 (-0.68, -0.50), respectively. DIC model fit index values for Cholesky and spherical decompositions were 667.74 and 667.53, respectively; indicating both decomposition techniques were equally good. Further, the Gelman-Rubin convergence statistics were stable and all Monte Carlo errors were around 0.005. Overall, olanzapine, paliperidone and quetiapine were both significantly more effective and acceptable than placebo; whereas aripiprazole, haloperidol ziprasidone, divalproex, and carbamazepine were not. In addition, both lithium and lamotrigine failed to be effective and acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings exhibit an excellent concordance with the one used in clinical practice. Moreover, the Canadian Network for mood and Anxiety Treatments, and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists guidelines also recommended these drugs as first-line medications for treating bipolar disorder. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,084 | 0,112 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,016 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».