Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases (Oct 2019)

Agreement between results of meta-analyses from case reports and clinical studies, regarding efficacy and safety of idursulfase therapy in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPS-II). A new tool for evidence-based medicine in rare diseases

  • Miguel Sampayo-Cordero,
  • Bernat Miguel-Huguet,
  • Almudena Pardo-Mateos,
  • Andrea Malfettone,
  • José Pérez-García,
  • Antonio Llombart-Cussac,
  • Javier Cortés,
  • Marc Moltó-Abad,
  • Cecilia Muñoz-Delgado,
  • Marta Pérez-Quintana,
  • Jordi Pérez-López

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-019-1202-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background A preliminary exploratory study shows solid agreement between the results of case reports and clinical study meta-analyses in mucopolysaccharidosis Type I (MPS-I) adult patients. The aim of the present study is to confirm previous results in another patient population, suffering from mucopolysaccharidosis Type II (MPS-II). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of case reports published by April 2018 was conducted for MPS-II patients treated with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). The study is reported in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines (PROSPERO database code CRD42018093408). The assessed population and outcomes were the same as previously analyzed in a meta-analysis of MPS-II clinical studies. The primary endpoint was the percent of clinical cases showing improvement in efficacy outcome, or no harm in safety outcome after ERT initiation. A restrictive procedure to aggregate case reports, by selecting standardized and well-defined outcomes, was proposed. Different sensitivity analyses were able to evaluate the robustness of results. Results Every outcome classified as “acceptable evidence group” in our case report meta-analysis had been graded as “moderate strength of evidence” in the aforementioned meta-analysis of clinical studies. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive-negative predictive values for results of both meta-analyses reached 100%, and were deemed equivalent. Conclusions Aggregating case reports quantitatively, rather than analyzing them qualitatively, may improve conclusions in rare diseases and personalized medicine. Additionally, we propose some methods to evaluate publication bias and heterogeneity of the included studies in a meta-analysis of case reports.

Keywords