![Page 1: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Network meta-analysis in SASDanish Society of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, Elsinore, May 27, 2014
David A. Scott MA MScSenior Director, ICON Health Economics
Visiting Fellow, SHTAC, University of Southampton
![Page 2: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Network Meta-Analysis: Software
• winBUGS/OpenBUGS/JAGS (DSU series)• R e.g. rmeta, netmeta, mvmeta packages• Stata mvmeta• SAS e.g. proc glimmix, proc mcmc
![Page 3: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
A brief history of NMA in SAS
• Lots of different procedures to implement NMA in SAS– proc mixed, proc mixed, proc nlmixed, proc
genmod, proc glimmix1-3
– Frequentist techniques– Difficult to fit complex hierarchical models2
• MCMC techniques– proc genmod (using Easy Bayes) -> proc mcmc– SAS 9.2 (level 2M3), SAS 9.3 (sas stat 12)
1 Glenny AM et al, Health Technology Assessment 2005; 9(26)2 Jones B et al, Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10:523-313 Piepho HP et al. Biometrics 2012; 68:1269-77
![Page 4: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Potential barriers
• DSU series winBUGS-focused• SAS not yet used in UK reimbursement
submissions• ERG limited experience of SAS• Limited published code/articles• Validation exercise
![Page 7: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Illustrative example 1 - binary data
![Page 8: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Syntax: load datadata smoking;input Study Trt R N narm;datalines;1 2 11 78 3 #Mothersill 19881 3 12 85 3 #Mothersill 19881 4 29 170 3 #Mothersill 19882 1 75 731 2 #Reid 1974…run;
![Page 11: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Syntax: fixed effectsproc mcmc data=smoking nmc=20000 seed=246810;random Studyeffect ~general(0) subject=Study init=(0);random Treat ~general(0) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="No contact" monitor=(Treat);mu= Studyeffect + Treat;P=1-(1/(1+exp(mu)));model R ~ binomial(n=N, p=P);run;
![Page 12: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Syntax: random effectsproc mcmc data=smoking nbi=20000 nmc=200000 thin=10 seed=246810 monitor=(mysd) dic;random Studyeffect ~normal(0, var=10000) subject=Study init=(0) ;random Treat ~normal(0, var=10000) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="No contact" monitor=(Treat);parms mysd 0.2;prior mysd ~ uniform(0,1);random RE ~ normal(0,sd=mysd/sqrt(2)) subject=_OBS_ init=(0);mu= Studyeffect + Treat +RE;P=1-(1/(1+exp(mu)));model R ~ binomial(n=N, p=P);run;
![Page 13: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Diagnostics
• Trace• Density• Autocorrelation– thin= option
• DIC (relative model fit)– dic option
![Page 14: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Diagnostics in SAS
![Page 15: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Practical exercise 1
• Run the code as is• Compare results for each model• Amend the code to generate fewer MCMC samples,
how many are sufficient? How much burn-in is needed? Is thinning necessary in the RE model?
• Which model is the better fit, fixed or random effects?• Change the baseline from “no contact” to “self help”.
Are the results consistent? • Try changing the priors to other vague priors1, does this
affect results? 1 Lambert PC et al, Statistics in Medicine, 2005; 24:2401-28
![Page 17: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Results from WinBUGS
Fixed effects mean sd
Self help 0.25 0.13Individual counselling 0.75 0.06Group counselling 1.02 0.21DIC 485.0Random effects Self help 0.46 0.4Individual counselling 0.78 0.23Group counselling 1.09 0.51reSD 0.79 0.18DIC 298.6
![Page 18: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Illustrative example 2 - continuous data
![Page 19: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
RQy449hbr123oxout
![Page 20: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Syntax: load datadata scott;input study trt baseline y SE;datalines;1 2 8.5 -1.08 0.121 3 8.5 -1.13 0.121 1 8.5 0.23 0.22 2 8.4 -1 0.1…;run;
![Page 22: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Syntax: fixed effectsproc mcmc data=scott nmc=200000 nthin=20 seed=246810;random Studyeffect ~general(0) subject=Study init=(0) ;random Treat ~general(0) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="Placebo" monitor=(Treat);Mu= Studyeffect + Treat ;model Y ~ normal(mean=Mu, var=SE*SE);run;
![Page 23: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Syntax: random effectsproc mcmc data=scott nmc=200000 nthin=20 seed=246810 monitor=(mysd) outpost=outp7 dic;random Studyeffect ~normal(0,var=10000) subject=Study init=(0) ;random Treat ~normal(0,var=10000) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="Placebo" monitor=(Treat);parms mysd 0.2;prior mysd ~ uniform(0,1);random RE ~normal(0,sd=mysd/sqrt(2)) subject=_OBS_ init=(0);Mu= Studyeffect + Treat +RE;model Y ~ normal(mean=Mu, sd=SE);run;
![Page 24: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Syntax: fixed effects meta-regression
proc mcmc data=scott nmc=200000 nthin=20 seed=246810;random Studyeffect ~general(0) subject=Study init=(0) ;random Treat ~general(0) subject=Treatment init=(0) zero="Placebo" monitor=(Treat);parms hba1c 0;prior hba1c ~normal(0,var=10000);Mu= Studyeffect + Treat + baseline*hba1c;model Y ~ normal(mean=Mu, var=SE*SE);run;
![Page 25: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Practical exercise 2• Run the code as is• Compare results for each model• Which model is the better fit, fixed or random effects, or meta-
regression?• Amend the code to generate fewer MCMC samples, how many are
sufficient? How much burn-in is needed? Is thinning necessary in the RE model?
• Change the baseline from “Placebo” to “Insulin Glargine”. Are the results consistent?
• Compare results to WinBUGS output • Try changing the priors to other vague priors1, does this affect
results?
1 Lambert PC et al, Statistics in Medicine, 2005; 24:2401-28
![Page 26: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Results from WinBUGS
Fixed effects mean sdLiraglutide 1.2mg -1.04 0.07Liraglutide 1.8mg -1.21 0.06Insulin glargine -0.82 0.06Exenatide BID -0.79 0.05Exenatide QW -1.12 0.06Fixed effects adjusting for baseline hba1cLiraglutide 1.2mg -1.02 0.07Liraglutide 1.8mg -1.20 0.06Insulin glargine -0.83 0.06Exenatide BID -0.82 0.05Exenatide QW -1.13 0.06delta -0.41 0.14
![Page 27: David A. Scott MA MSc Senior Director, ICON Health Economics](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081421/568165b7550346895dd8b597/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Random effects from paper