Dupilumab versus mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: an indirect treatment comparison.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab and mepolizumab have shown efficacy and safety in treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). OBJECTIVE: Without available results from head-to-head randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing dupilumab with other biologics, we conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) with mepolizumab. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified RCTs of biologics in CRSwNP. A Bucher ITC was performed, including nasal polyp score (NPS; range 0-8), nasal congestion (NC; 0-3), loss of smell (LOS; 0-3), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT; 0-40), visual analog score (VAS; 0-10), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22; 0-110), systemic corticosteroids (SCS) use or surgery for nasal polyps (NPs), and binary responder analyses for NPS and SNOT-22 improvement by ≥1/≥2 and ≥8.9, respectively. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were conducted as supporting analyses. RESULTS: SINUS-24/-52 (SYNAPSE-like subpopulation only) and SYNAPSE were identified for ITC. At 24 weeks, change from baseline in NPS and proportion of patients with a binary responder outcome of NPS improvement ≥1 were significantly (P<0.05) greater in patients receiving dupilumab versus mepolizumab. At 52 weeks, improvements in NPS, NC, LOS, UPSIT, and VAS were significantly (P<0.05) greater for dupilumab versus mepolizumab. Proportion of patients achieving binary responder outcomes of NPS and SNOT-22 improvement by ≥1/≥2 and ≥8.9, respectively, was significantly (P<0.05) higher, while SCS use was significantly (P<0.05) reduced, for dupilumab versus mepolizumab. Surgery rate was numerically reduced with dupilumab versus mepolizumab. The MAIC analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab was associated with greater improvements in CRSwNP-related outcomes versus mepolizumab.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Erdafitinib vs Enfortumab Vedotin in Patients with Locally Advanced Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Background: For patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC), prognosis is poor and effective treatment options are limited. Erdafitinib is an oral fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) kinase inhibitor approved by the FDA for the treatment of adults with la/mUC harboring FGFR alterations whose disease progressed following at least 1 prior line of therapy, including a PD-1 or PD-L(1) inhibitor, based on the phase 3, randomized THOR trial (NCT03390504, Cohort 1). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of erdafitinib vs enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (EV) in the absence of head-to-head comparison via an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Methods: An anchored MAIC was conducted according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance, with physician's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel/paclitaxel and vinflunine) as the common comparator. Individual patient data from THOR were adjusted to match published key eligibility criteria and average baseline characteristics of EV-301, such as Bellmunt risk score, liver or visceral metastases, primary site, among others. Erdafitinib was then indirectly compared with EV using the relative treatment effects for the reweighted THOR population and those published for EV-301. Results: After matching, the effective sample size for THOR was 126 patients. The MAIC-recalculated hazard ratio (95% credible interval) for erdafitinib vs EV was 0.92 (0.54, 1.57) for overall survival and 0.93 (0.55, 1.56) for progression-free survival, yielding Bayesian probabilities of erdafitinib being better than EV of 62.1% and 60.5%, respectively. For response outcomes, the MAIC-recalculated risk ratio was 1.49 (0.56, 3.90) for confirmed objective response rate and 2.89 (0.27, 30.33) for confirmed complete response with probabilities of 72.6% and 81.3% for erdafitinib being better than EV, respectively. For safety, MAIC-yielded risk ratios of 1.09 (0.99, 1.21) for any treatment-related adverse events, 0.86 (0.57, 1.28) for grade 3+ TRAEs, and 1.02 (0.98, 1.06) for any treatment-emergent adverse events. Conclusion: The MAIC indicates comparable efficacy of erdafitinib vs EV for overall survival and progression-free survival, with erdafitinib showing a higher probability of achieving deep responses. While erdafitinib is associated with slightly more adverse events compared with EV, these events seem to be less severe.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression. Objectives: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Methods: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Results: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusions: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient's risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.

Talquetamab Versus Real-World Physician's Choice Treatment: Comparative Effectiveness in Patients With Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Talquetamab is approved for treatment of triple-class exposed (TCE) patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of talquetamab in the MonumenTAL-1 study versus real-world physician's choice (RW) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An external control arm for MonumenTAL-1 was created from patients in the Flatiron Health database who satisfied MonumenTAL-1 eligibility criteria (n = 629 with 1169 eligible lines of therapy). Patient-level data from MonumenTAL-1 were included for patients who received subcutaneous talquetamab 0.4 mg/kg QW (n = 143) and 0.8 mg/kg Q2W (n = 145). After adjusting for baseline covariate imbalances, comparative effectiveness was assessed for progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Baseline covariates were comparable across cohorts after adjustment. Talquetamab 0.4 mg/kg QW and 0.8 mg/kg Q2W cohorts, respectively, showed significant improvement in PFS (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.44-0.69; P < .0001; median, 7.5 vs. 4.0 months] and 0.40 [95% CI, 0.31-0.53; P < .0001; median, 14.2 vs. 4.0 months]), TTNT (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.47-0.74; P < .0001; median, 9.1 vs. 5.1 months] and 0.45 [95% CI, 0.35-0.59; P < .0001; median, 13.3 vs. 5.1 months]), and OS (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.40-0.78; P = .0007; median, NR vs. 16.5 months] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33-0.70; P = 0.0002; median NR vs. 15.9 months]) versus RW treatment. CONCLUSION: Both talquetamab schedules demonstrated superior effectiveness over RW treatment for all outcomes assessed. These data suggest talquetamab as an effective immunotherapy option in patients with TCE RRMM.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Lorlatinib Versus Alectinib and Lorlatinib Versus Brigatinib for ALK-Positive Advanced/Metastatic NSCLC: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: The comparative efficacy and safety of lorlatinib, a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), versus second-generation ALK TKIs as a first-line treatment for ALK+ advanced/metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains uncertain as there are no head-to-head clinical trials. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using phase III trial data demonstrating superior efficacy over crizotinib, a first-generation ALK TKI. MAICs were conducted to compare lorlatinib (CROWN) versus alectinib (ALEX and ALESIA) and brigatinib (ALTA-1L) with matching based on prespecified effect modifiers. Efficacy outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response (OR), and time to progression in the central nervous system (TTP-CNS). Safety outcomes included Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or dose interruption. RESULTS: Lorlatinib was estimated to improve PFS compared to alectinib (ALEX) (HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.33, 0.88]) and brigatinib (ALTA-1L) (HR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.31, 0.82]). Lorlatinib was estimated to improve TTP-CNS compared with brigatinib (HR: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.71]). The estimated Grade ≥3 AE rate was higher with lorlatinib than with alectinib (RR: 1.48 [95% CI: 1.13, 1.94]); however, no differences were observed in other safety endpoints (ie, AEs leading to discontinuation, dose reduction, or interruption) or compared to brigatinib. CONCLUSION: Lorlatinib was estimated to have superior efficacy over first- and second-generation ALK-TKIs, but a higher rate of Grade ≥3 AEs compared to alectinib. These data support the use of lorlatinib as a first-line treatment for ALK+ advanced/metastatic NSCLC.

Comparing the efficacy of cipaglucosidase alfa plus miglustat with other enzyme replacement therapies for late-onset Pompe disease: a network meta-analysis utilizing patient-level and aggregate data.

Aim: Late-onset Pompe disease is characterized by progressive loss of muscular and respiratory function. Until recently, standard of care was enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with alglucosidase alfa. Second-generation ERTs avalglucosidase alfa (aval) and cipaglucosidase alfa with miglustat (cipa+mig) are now available. Without head-to-head trials comparing aval with cipa+mig, an indirect treatment comparison is informative and timely for understanding potential clinical differentiation. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies on cipa+mig and aval. Using patient-level and aggregate published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and phase I/II and open-label extension (OLE) trials, a multi-level network meta-regression was conducted, adjusting for various baseline covariates, including previous ERT duration, to obtain relative effect estimates on 6-minute walk distance (6MWD, meters [m]) and forced vital capacity (FVC, % predicted [pp]). Analyses of two networks were conducted: Network A, including only RCTs, and network B, additionally including single-arm OLE and phase I/II studies. Results: Network B (full evidence analysis) showed that cipa+mig was associated with a relative increase in 6MWD (mean difference 28.93 m, 95% credible interval [8.26-50.11 m]; Bayesian probability 99.7%) and FVC (2.88 pp [1.07-4.71 pp]; >99.9%) compared with aval. The comparison between cipa+mig and aval became more favorable for cipa+mig with increasing previous ERT duration for both end points. Analysis of network A showed that cipa+mig was associated with a relative decrease in 6MWD (-10.02 m [-23.62 to 4.00 m]; 91.8%) and FVC (-1.45 pp [-3.01 to 0.07 pp]; 96.8%) compared with aval. Conclusion: Cipa+mig showed a favorable effect versus aval when all available evidence was used in the analysis.

Comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus idecabtagene vicleucel in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with 2-4 prior lines of therapy: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with 2-4 prior lines of therapy. METHODS: Matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAICs) were performed using individual patient-level data (IPD) for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and CARTITUDE-4 and published aggregated data for ide-cel from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel patients who met inclusion criteria from KarMMa-3 were selected, and outcomes were compared against data for ide-cel using simulated IPD derived from aggregate-level data from KarMMa-3. Patient characteristics were adjusted by reweighting cilta-cel IPD to match the distribution of prognostic factors in KarMMa-3. Comparative efficacy was estimated for response outcomes using a weighted logistic regression analysis and for progression-free survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Patients treated with cilta-cel were 1.2 times more likely to achieve overall response (relative response ratio [RR]: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.34]; p = 0.04), 1.3 times more likely to achieve very good partial response or better (RR: 1.34 [1.15-1.57]; p = 0.003), and 1.9 times more likely to achieve complete response or better (RR: 1.91 [1.54-2.37]; p < 0.0001) versus ide-cel patients from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel was associated with a significant 49% reduction in risk of disease progression or death versus ide-cel (hazard ratio: 0.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.84]; p = 0.0078). CONCLUSION: For patients with triple-class exposed RRMM treated with 2-4 prior lines of treatment, cilta-cel was found to provide superior clinical benefit over ide-cel in terms of response and progression-free survival.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs. Vedolizumab, Ustekinumab, and Tofacitinib After Induction and Maintenance for Ulcerative Colitis: Three Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited. METHODS: Using data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators. CONCLUSION: In patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist.

Broad versus narrow research questions in evidence synthesis: A parallel to (and plea for) estimands.

There has been a transition from broad to more specific research questions in the practice of network meta-analysis (NMA). Such convergence is also taking place in the context of individual registrational trials, following the recent introduction of the estimand framework, which is impacting the design, data collection strategy, analysis and interpretation of clinical trials. The language of estimands has much to offer to NMA, particularly given the "narrow" perspective of treatments and target populations taken in health technology assessment.

Efficacy of Upadacitinib and Dupilumab on Achieving Stringent and Composite Skin and Itch Outcomes: an Indirect Comparison of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of upadacitinib has been assessed in trials including Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293), Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422), and Heads Up (NCT03738397). Measure Up 1 and 2 assessed efficacy of upadacitinib 30 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg against placebo, while Heads Up assessed efficacy of upadacitinib 30 mg in a head-to-head trial against dupilumab 300 mg. A head-to-head trial of upadacitinib 15 mg against dupilumab 300 mg has not been conducted. Network meta-analysis has shown that upadacitinib 30 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg are among the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies, but prior indirect comparisons have not evaluated more stringent outcomes. METHODS: A population-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using post hoc individual patient data from Measure Up 1 and 2 and Heads Up to estimate how upadacitinib 15 mg would have performed if included in Heads Up by adjusting for patient-level covariates. Absolute response rates at weeks 4, 16, and 24 were estimated for the following outcomes: no/minimal itch [Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) score of 0/1], Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of ≤ 3 (EASI ≤ 3), 100% improvement in EASI (EASI 100), both ≥ 90% improvement in EASI (EASI 90) and WP-NRS 0/1, both EASI ≤ 3 and WP-NRS 0/1, and both EASI 100 and WP-NRS 0/1. The analysis was conducted on adult patients, aligned with the intention-to treat population for the clinical trials, and used non-responder imputation. RESULTS: Across all outcomes assessed, the estimated absolute response rates were greatest for upadacitinib 30 mg, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg and then dupilumab. This pattern was observed at week 4, week 16, and week 24. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with moderate-to-severe AD, upadacitinib 30 mg appears to be the most efficacious treatment in attaining more stringent and composite outcomes across multiple timepoints, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg and then dupilumab 300 mg.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Obesity Medications Among Adult East Asian People with Obesity: A Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of obesity has increased worldwide over the past decades. Regional variations exist in the relationship between body mass index (BMI), body fat, and health risks: Asians typically have a lower BMI than people of European descent, but a higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities. However, there is a paucity of evidence for anti-obesity medications (AOMs) in East Asian populations. In this study, we aimed to systematically review evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of AOMs among adults with obesity disease in East Asia, and to assess the feasibility of conducting an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) between the semaglutide and mazindol trials. METHODS: The Embase, MEDLINE, and ICHUSHI databases were searched via the Ovid SP platform for randomized controlled trials, in English or Japanese, reporting data on semaglutide or mazindol therapy with placebo or diet and exercise as comparators. The potential risks of bias in conducting a population-adjusted ITC were determined based on the heterogeneity of potential effect modifiers and variations in study design. RESULTS: Of 21 publications, 2 were included in this study based on the eligibility criteria. The STEP 6 study established the clinical efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide compared with placebo in the reduction of body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure] among Japanese and South Korean people with obesity disease. Mazindol also proved beneficial in reducing body weight and total cholesterol compared with placebo in Japan. Both semaglutide and mazindol were associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment discontinuation than placebo. An ITC between the two studies was not deemed feasible based on the potential risks of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide and mazindol are associated with significant body weight reduction among people with obesity in East Asia. Further research based on label indications and up-to-date real-world data among East Asian people with obesity would help determine additional clinical benefits.

Efficacy of fexuprazan compared with rebamipide in Korean patients with gastritis: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: Gastritis is one of the most frequently diagnosed diseases requiring medical treatment in South Korea. Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has been approved for treating gastritis and erosive esophagitis. Meanwhile, rebamipide is the most commonly used mucoprotective agent for acute and chronic gastritis in real-world settings in South Korea. However, there have been no studies comparing the efficacy of these two drugs yet. AIM: To compare the efficacy of fexuprazan with that of rebamipide for acute and chronic gastritis. METHODS: This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Individual patient data from a phase III study of fexuprazan (10 mg BID) were compared with cumulative data from two matching studies of rebamipide (100 mg TID). Erosion improvement and healing rates were compared between two weeks of fexurapan, two weeks of rebamipide, and four weeks of rebamipide. The two main outcome variables were presented as percentages, and the risk differences (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the relative treatment effects. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, the erosion improvement and healing rates after a two-week treatment with fexuprazan were 64.5% and 53.2%, respectively, while a two-week treatment with rebamipide resulted in erosion improvement and healing rates of 43.6% (RD: 21.0%; 95%CI: 9.6-32.3; P < 0.01) and 35.6% (RD: 17.6%; 95%CI: 6.1-29.2; P = 0.003), respectively. In the additional analysis, the erosion improvement and healing rates for the two-week fexuprazan treatment (64.2% and 51.2%, respectively) were similar to those obtained during a four-week treatment with rebamipide (60.6%; RD: 3.6%; 95%CI: -9.8, 17.0; P = 0.600 and 53.5%; RD: -2.3%; 95%CI: -16.1, 11.5; P = 0.744, respectively). CONCLUSION: The two-week fexuprazan treatment was superior to the two-week rebamipide treatment and similar to the four-week rebamipide treatment for patients with gastritis.

A Targeted Review of Worldwide Indirect Treatment Comparison Guidelines and Best Practices.

OBJECTIVES: Controls and governance over the methodology and reporting of indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) have been introduced to minimize bias and ensure scientific credibility and transparency in healthcare decision making. The objective of this study was to highlight ITC techniques that are key to conducting objective and analytically sound analyses and to ascertain circumstantial suitability of ITCs as a source of comparative evidence for healthcare interventions. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE was searched from January 2010 through August 2023 to identify publicly available ITC-related documents (ie, guidelines and best practices) in the English language. This was supplemented with hand searches of websites of various international organizations, regulatory agencies, and reimbursement agencies of Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. The jurisdiction-specific ITC methodology and reporting recommendations were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight guidelines from 10 authorities worldwide were included for synthesis. Many of the included guidelines were updated within the last 5 years and commonly cited the absence of direct comparative studies as primary justification for using ITCs. Most jurisdictions favored population-adjusted or anchored ITC techniques opposed to naive comparisons. Recommendations on the reporting and presentation of these ITCs varied across authorities; however, there was some overlap among the key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Given the challenges of conducting head-to-head randomized controlled trials, comparative data from ITCs offer valuable insights into clinical-effectiveness. As such, multiple ITC guidelines have emerged worldwide. According to the most recent versions of the guidelines, the suitability and subsequent acceptability of the ITC technique used depends on the data sources, available evidence, and magnitude of benefit/uncertainty.

Tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus injectable semaglutide 0.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg with subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 mg as second-line treatment for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, after metformin monotherapy, using adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (aITCs). METHODS: The aITCs were performed using the Bucher method to compare the relative efficacy and safety of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 0.5 mg via a common comparator (subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg) based on trial results from SURPASS-2 (NCT03987919) and SUSTAIN7 (NCT02648204). RESULTS: All tirzepatide doses showed statistically significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin, body weight and body mass index from baseline to week 40, with a comparable adverse event (AE) profile and no statistically significant differences in the odds of gastrointestinal AEs versus semaglutide 0.5 mg. Furthermore, all tirzepatide doses showed greater odds of patients achieving HbA1c targets of ≤ 6.5 % (≤48 mmol/mol) and < 7.0 % (<53 mmol/mol) and weight loss targets of ≥ 5 % and ≥ 10 %, versus semaglutide 0.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: In these aITCs, glycated haemoglobin and weight reductions were significantly greater for all tirzepatide doses versus semaglutide 0.5 mg with a comparable AE profile. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

Long-Term Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Risdiplam and Nusinersen in Children with Type 1 Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a severe genetic neuromuscular disease characterized by a loss of motor neurons and progressive muscle weakness. Children with untreated type 1 SMA never sit independently and require increasing levels of ventilatory support as the disease progresses. Without intervention, and lacking ventilatory support, death typically occurs before the age of 2 years. There are currently no head-to-head trials comparing available treatments in SMA. Indirect treatment comparisons are therefore needed to provide information on the relative efficacy and safety of SMA treatments for healthcare decision-making. METHODS: The long-term efficacy and safety of risdiplam versus nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA was evaluated using indirect treatment comparison methodology to adjust for differences between population baseline characteristics, to reduce any potential bias in the comparative analysis. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using risdiplam data from 58 children in FIREFISH (NCT02913482) and published aggregate nusinersen data from 81 children obtained from the ENDEAR (NCT02193074) and SHINE (NCT02594124) clinical trials with at least 36 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Children with type 1 SMA treated with risdiplam had a 78% reduction in the rate of death, an 81% reduction in the rate of death or permanent ventilation, and a 57% reduction in the rate of serious adverse events compared with children treated with nusinersen. Children treated with risdiplam also had a 45% higher rate of achieving a Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination, Module 2 motor milestone response and a 186% higher rate of achieving a ≥ 4-point improvement in Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders compared with children treated with nusinersen. CONCLUSION: Long-term data supported risdiplam as a superior alternative to nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA. Video abstract available for this article. Video abstract (MP4 184542 KB).

Risdiplam and nusinersen are two approved treatments for patients with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). There are currently no head-to-head trials that compare the outcomes of these treatments in patients. This study conducted a statistical comparison of the efficacy and safety of risdiplam and nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA who received treatment for at least 36 months. Risdiplam data were collected from 58 children who participated in the FIREFISH trial (NCT02913482). Published combined data were collected from 81 children treated with nusinersen who participated in the ENDEAR (NCT02193074) and SHINE (NCT02594124) trials. Outcomes from the two studies were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methodology. MAIC adjusts for differences in baseline characteristics between patients in two trials to make the populations more similar and reduce bias in the comparison. Results suggested that children with type 1 SMA treated with risdiplam had a 78% reduction in the rate of death and an 81% reduction in the rate of death or permanent ventilation compared with children treated with nusinersen. With risdiplam, children also had a higher rate of achieving motor function responses, and a longer time to the first serious adverse event compared with children treated with nusinersen. These results support risdiplam as a superior alternative to nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA over 36 months of follow-up. Access to long-term data beyond 36 months would allow for additional indirect comparisons between SMA treatments. These comparisons are key to guiding treatment decision-making in the absence of head-to-head trials.

Advancing unanchored simulated treatment comparisons: A novel implementation and simulation study.

Population-adjusted indirect comparisons, developed in the 2010s, enable comparisons between two treatments in different studies by balancing patient characteristics in the case where individual patient-level data (IPD) are available for only one study. Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies increasingly rely on these methods to inform funding decisions, typically using unanchored indirect comparisons (i.e., without a common comparator), due to the need to evaluate comparative efficacy and safety for single-arm trials. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC) are currently the only two approaches available for population-adjusted indirect comparisons based on single-arm trials. However, there is a notable underutilisation of unanchored STC in HTA, largely due to a lack of understanding of its implementation. We therefore develop a novel way to implement unanchored STC by incorporating standardisation/marginalisation and the NORmal To Anything (NORTA) algorithm for sampling covariates. This methodology aims to derive a suitable marginal treatment effect without aggregation bias for HTA evaluations. We use a non-parametric bootstrap and propose separately calculating the standard error for the IPD study and the comparator study to ensure the appropriate quantification of the uncertainty associated with the estimated treatment effect. The performance of our proposed unanchored STC approach is evaluated through a comprehensive simulation study focused on binary outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that the proposed approach is asymptotically unbiased. We argue that unanchored STC should be considered when conducting unanchored indirect comparisons with single-arm studies, presenting a robust approach for HTA decision-making.

Methods for Indirect Treatment Comparison: Results from a Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, not possible. Numerous ITC techniques are described in the literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify all the relevant literature on existing ITC techniques, provide a comprehensive description of each technique and evaluate their strengths and limitations from an HTA perspective in order to develop guidance on the most appropriate method to use in different scenarios. METHODS: Electronic database searches of Embase and PubMed, as well as grey literature searches, were conducted on 15 November 2021. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed papers that specifically described the methods used for different ITC techniques and were written in English. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 73 articles were included in the SLR, reporting on seven different ITC techniques. All reported techniques were forms of adjusted ITC. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was the most frequently described technique (in 79.5% of the included articles), followed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (30.1%), network meta-regression (24.7%), the Bucher method (23.3%), simulated treatment comparison (STC) (21.9%), propensity score matching (4.1%) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (4.1%). The appropriate choice of ITC technique is critical and should be based on the feasibility of a connected network, the evidence of heterogeneity between and within studies, the overall number of relevant studies and the availability of individual patient-level data (IPD). MAIC and STC were found to be common techniques in the case of single-arm studies, which are increasingly being conducted in oncology and rare diseases, whilst the Bucher method and NMA provide suitable options where no IPD is available. CONCLUSION: ITCs can provide alternative evidence where direct comparative evidence may be missing. ITCs are currently considered by HTA agencies on a case-by-case basis; however, their acceptability remains low. Clearer international consensus and guidance on the methods to use for different ITC techniques is needed to improve the quality of ITCs submitted to HTA agencies. ITC techniques continue to evolve quickly, and more efficient techniques may become available in the future.

Acupuncture versus tricyclic antidepressants in the prophylactic treatment of tension-type headaches: an indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture showed better improvement than sham acupuncture in reducing attack frequency of tension-type headache (TTH), but its effectiveness relative to first-line drugs for TTH is unknown, which impedes the recommendation of acupuncture for patients who are intolerant to drugs for TTH. We aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness between acupuncture and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) through indirect treatment comparison (ITC) meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception until April 13, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of TCAs or acupuncture in the prevention of TTH in adults were included. The primary outcome was headache frequency. The secondary outcomes were headache intensity, responder rate, and adverse event rate. Bayesian random-effect models were used to perform ITC meta-analysis, and confidence of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 34 trials involving 4426 participants were included. Acupuncture had similar effect with TCAs in decreasing TTH frequency (amitriptyline: mean difference [MD] -1.29, 95% CI -5.28 to 3.02; amitriptylinoxide: MD -0.05, 95% CI -6.86 to 7.06) and reducing TTH intensity (amitriptyline: MD 2.35, 95% CI -1.20 to 5.78; clomipramine: MD 1.83, 95% CI -4.23 to 8.20). Amitriptyline had a higher rate of adverse events than acupuncture (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.42 to 14.23). CONCLUSION: Acupuncture had similar effect as TCAs in reducing headache frequency of TTH, and acupuncture had a lower adverse events rate than amitriptyline, as shown by very low certainty of evidence.

Comparative efficacy of ofatumumab versus oral therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients using propensity score analyses and simulated treatment comparisons.

Background: Evidence from network meta-analyses (NMAs) and real-world propensity score (PS) analyses suggest monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer a therapeutic advantage over currently available oral therapies and, therefore, warrant consideration as a distinct group of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). This is counter to the current perception of these therapies by some stakeholders, including payers. Objectives: A multifaceted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) approach was undertaken to clarify the relative efficacy of mAbs and oral therapies. Design: Two ITC methods that use individual patient data (IPD) to adjust for between-trial differences, PS analyses and simulated treatment comparisons (STCs), were used to compare the mAb ofatumumab versus the oral therapies cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod. Data sources and methods: As IPD were available for trials of ofatumumab and fingolimod, PS analyses were conducted. Given summary-level data were available for cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod trials, STCs were conducted between ofatumumab and each of these oral therapies. Three efficacy outcomes were compared: annualized relapse rate (ARR), 3-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP), and 6-month CDP (6mCDP). Results: The PS analyses demonstrated ofatumumab was statistically superior to fingolimod for ARR and time to 3mCDP but not time to 6mCDP. In STCs, ofatumumab was statistically superior in reducing ARR and decreasing the proportion of patients with 3mCDP compared with cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod and in decreasing the proportion with 6mCP compared with fingolimod and ozanimod. These findings were largely consistent with recently published NMAs that identified mAb therapies as the most efficacious DMTs for RMS. Conclusion: Complementary ITC methods showed ofatumumab was superior to cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod in lowering relapse rates and delaying disability progression among patients with RMS. Our study supports the therapeutic superiority of mAbs over currently available oral DMTs for RMS and the delineation of mAbs as high-efficacy therapies.