Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 638oXLJWPmBYCECGcdmcJZ Video abstract (MP4 184542 KB) Plain Language Summary: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are commonly used treatment combinations for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). D-Rd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naïve comparisons of efficacy across the two trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas SWOG S0777 enrolled both TIE patients and transplant-eligible patients who chose to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). The present study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in TIE patients with NDMM treated with D-Rd versus VRd based on an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) that leveraged individual patient-level data from MAIA and SWOG S0777. Methods: Harmonized inclusion/exclusion criteria (including age ≥ 65 years as a proxy for transplant ineligibility) and propensity-score weighting were used to balance the trial populations on measured baseline characteristics. After differences in trial populations were adjusted for, an anchored ITC was performed wherein within-trial PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for D-Rd versus Rd and VRd versus Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for D-Rd versus VRd. Results: PFS HRs were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–0.67) for D-Rd versus Rd based on MAIA data, 0.88 (95% CI 0.63–1.23) for VRd versus Rd based on SWOG S0777 data, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.39–0.90) for the Rd-anchored ITC of D-Rd versus VRd. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses produced results consistent with the primary results. Conclusion: This anchored ITC demonstrated a greater PFS benefit for D-Rd versus VRd in TIE patients with NDMM. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing D-Rd and VRd, the present trial may help inform treatment selection in this patient population. Plain Language Summary: Multiple drug combinations can be used to treat patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant. Two of these combinations—daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd)—have each been studied in clinical trials (MAIA and SWOG S0777) against the combination of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd), but D-Rd and VRd have not been compared directly in a head-to-head clinical trial. Our study used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials to indirectly compare outcomes observed with D-Rd and VRd. For this indirect comparison between D-Rd and VRd, we first made adjustments to the patient populations of each trial to make them more similar to each other; this helped to make sure any differences we saw in treatment outcomes between D-Rd and VRd would not be because of differences in the characteristics of the patients who participated in the trials. After we made these adjustments to the patient populations of each trial, both D-Rd and VRd lowered the risk of disease progression or death compared with Rd alone. However, when indirectly compared in our study, D-Rd lowered the risk of disease progression or death by 41% compared with VRd. As data directly comparing treatment outcomes for D-Rd and VRd are not available, this indirect comparison can contribute to the information used to make treatment decisions for patients with NDMM who are not eligible for a stem cell transplant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Highlights: Acupuncture showed better improvement than sham acupuncture in reducing headache frequency of tension-type headache (TTH), but the lack of comparisons between acupuncture and first-line drugs impedes recommendation of acupuncture for TTH. Our indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis found similar effect between acupuncture and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in reducing TTH frequency with very low certainty of evidence. Similar effect between acupuncture and TCAs were also observed in reducing headache intensity with very low certainty of evidence. Acupuncture had a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline with very low certainty of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (nr-axSpA), atopic dermatitis (AD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and Crohn's disease (CD) pose a substantial burden on patients and their quality of life. Upadacitinib is an orally administered, selective, and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor indicated for seven conditions, but data on its safety versus other active treatments are limited. A systematic literature review of indirect and direct treatment comparisons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the safety profile of upadacitinib. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for indirect and direct treatment comparisons of RCTs that (1) included licensed upadacitinib dosages; (2) studied any of the seven conditions; (3) reported any adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, major adverse cardiovascular event, venous thromboembolism, malignancies, infections or serious infections, and death; and (4) were published between January 2018 and August 2022. Results: A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. SAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and any AEs were commonly studied. RA was the most studied condition, followed by AD and UC. Most studies (16/25, 64%) reported no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes between upadacitinib and other active treatments (e.g., tumor necrosis factor blockers, interleukin receptor antagonists, integrin receptor antagonists, T cell co-stimulation modulator), or placebo (placebo ± methotrexate or topical corticosteroids). Other studies (9/25, 36%) reported mixed results of no statistically significant difference and either statistically higher (8/25, 32%) or lower rates (1/25, 4%) on upadacitinib. Conclusion: Most studies suggested that upadacitinib has no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes compared to active treatments or placebo in patients with RA, PsA, AS, AD, UC, and CD. A few studies reported higher rates, but findings were inconsistent with limited interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Deucravacitinib, a newly approved oral medication for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, demonstrated efficacy versus apremilast and placebo in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) indirectly compared deucravacitinib with other relevant systemic biologic/nonbiologic treatments. Methods: Online databases were searched for RCTs published through October 2021. Eligible studies were head-to-head comparisons between systemic therapies and/or placebo reporting 50%, 75%, 90%, or 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from baseline in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Comparisons included tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and IL 12/23 inhibitors, and systemic nonbiologics. A multinomial Bayesian NMA was used to derive estimates of the relative efficacy of deucravacitinib and other systemic therapies. Response probabilities for each treatment and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for achieving a PASI response were calculated over short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up (weeks 10–16, 24–28, and 44–60). Results: The NMA included 47 RCTs. Deucravacitinib showed the highest PASI 75 response rates among nonbiologic systemic therapies across time points. Deucravacitinib PASI 75 response rate (95% CrI) over short-term follow-up was 54.1% (46.5–61.6), within the range of first-generation biologics (etanercept, 39.7% [31.6–48.3]; infliximab, 79.0% [74.0–83.5]). At mid-term follow-up, deucravacitinib PASI 75 increased to 63.3% (58.0–68.4). At long-term follow-up, deucravacitinib PASI 75 was 65.9% (58.0–73.4), comparable to first-generation biologics adalimumab (62.8%; 55.3–69.6) and ustekinumab (68.0%; 64.6–71.5). Conclusions: Patients receiving deucravacitinib were more likely to achieve PASI 75 response versus apremilast and methotrexate across all time points. The long-term PASI 75 response rate for deucravacitinib was similar to those of adalimumab and ustekinumab. The approval of deucravacitinib offers patients the choice of an oral therapy with long-term efficacy similar to that of some biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ready-to-use glucagon represents a significant advancement in the management of severe hypoglycemia for people with diabetes and their caregivers. This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) evaluated the efficacy and safety differences among the three ready-to-use glucagon treatments, Baqsimi® (nasal glucagon), Gvoke® (glucagon injection) and Zegalogue® (dasiglucagon injection), in adults and children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of Baqsimi, Gvoke or Zegalogue versus reconstituted, injectable glucagon (IG) in reversing insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Bayesian fixed-effect network meta-analysis was used to perform the ITC. Study endpoints included proportion of participants achieving treatment success, maximum blood glucose achieved, time to achieve treatment success and maximum blood glucose and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). Results: Ten clinical trials were included in the ITC (four for Baqsimi, three for Gvoke, and three for Zegalogue). All three treatments achieved high proportions of treatment success (> 98%). In adults, the efficacy results from combined T1D and T2D analysis were consistent with the T1D analysis, except statistically significantly faster in achieving treatment success for Baqsimi vs Gvoke in the combined analysis (13.96 vs 14.66 min). The mean maximum blood glucose values were also statistically significantly lower for Baqsimi (168 mg/dl) vs Gvoke (220 mg/dl) and Zegalogue (190 mg/dl). There was a trend towards a lower number of adults experiencing ≥ 1 TEAE with Baqsimi compared to Gvoke or Zegalogue, but no statistical significance was reached. Conclusion: Baqsimi, Gvoke and Zegalogue had comparable high proportions of treatment success in reversing insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Baqsimi achieved a lower mean maximum blood glucose value, which may have implications for the re-establishment of euglycemia. These findings may help support patients, caregivers and health care providers in their decision-making process when discussing various ready-to-use glucagon treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The current standard of care for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Treatment recommendations are unclear for CP-CML failing ≥ 2 lines of treatment, partly due to the paucity of head-to-head trials evaluating TKIs. Thus, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted to compare asciminib with competing TKIs in third- or later line (≥ 3L) CP-CML. Methods: Individual patient-level data for asciminib (ASCEMBL; follow-up: ≥ 48 weeks) and published aggregate data for comparator TKIs (ponatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib) informed the analyses. Major molecular response (MMR), complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were assessed, where feasible. Results: Asciminib was associated with statistically significant improvements in MMR by 6 (relative risk [RR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02, 2.36) and 12 months (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.03, 2.14) vs ponatinib. For CCyR, the results vs ponatinib were similar by 6 (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.52) and 12 months (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.28). Asciminib was associated with improvements in MMR by 6 months vs dasatinib but with a CI overlapping one (RR 1.52; 95% CI: 0.66, 3.53). Asciminib was associated with statistically significant improvements in CCyR by 6 (RR: 3.57; 95% CI: 1.42, 8.98) and 12 months (RR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.12, 3.67) vs nilotinib/dasatinib. Median TTD was unreached for asciminib in ASCEMBL. However, post-adjustment asciminib implied prolonged TTD vs nilotinib and dasatinib, but not vs ponatinib. Conclusion: These analyses demonstrate favorable outcomes with asciminib versus competing TKIs, highlighting its therapeutic potential in ≥ 3L CP-CML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: We conducted two indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of zanubrutinib versus orelabrutinib in Chinese patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) or R/R mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed in R/R CLL/SLL patients. Individual patient data from zanubrutinib trial (BGB-3111-205) were adjusted to match the aggregated data from the orelabrutinib trial (ICP-CL-00103). A naïve comparison was performed in R/R MCL for the different response assessment methodology and efficacy analysis set between the zanubrutinib (BGB-3111-206) and orelabrutinib (ICP-CL-00102) trials. Efficacy outcomes included ORR and PFS. In R/R CLL/SLL patients, after matching, IRC-assessed ORR was comparable (86.6% vs. 92.5%; risk difference, -5.9% [95% CI: -15.8%-3.8%]); IRC-assessed PFS was similar with a favorable trend in zanubrutinib over orelabrutinib (HR, 0.74 [95% CI: 0.37-1.47]) and the 18-month PFS rate was numerically higher in zanubrutinib (82.9% vs. 78.7%). In R/R MCL patients, naïve comparison showed investigator-assessed ORR was similar (83.7% vs. 87.9%; risk difference, -4.2% [95% CI: -14.8%-6.0%]), and CR rate was significantly higher in zanubrutinib over orelabrutinib (77.9% vs. 42.9%; risk difference, 35.0% [95% CI: 14.5%, 53.7%]). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar with a favorable trend (HR, 0.77 [95% CI: 0.45-1.32]) in zanubrutinib over orelabrutinib and the 12-month PFS rate was numerically higher in zanubrutinib (77.5% vs. 70.8%). MAIC result showed zanubrutinib demonstrated favorable PFS over orelabrutinib for R/R CLL/SLL patients. The naïve comparison showed zanubrutinib had favorable PFS and higher CR rate than orelabrutinib for R/R MCL patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are often used to compare the efficacy of different therapies to support decision-making. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), a type of ITC, is increasingly used to compare treatment efficacy when individual patient data are available from one trial and only aggregate data are available from the other trial. This paper examines the conduct and reporting of MAICs to compare treatments for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a rare neuromuscular disease. A literature search identified three studies comparing approved treatments for SMA including nusinersen, risdiplam, and onasemnogene abeparvovec. The quality of the MAICs was assessed on the basis of the following principles consolidated from published MAIC best practices: (1) justification for the use of MAIC is clearly stated, (2) the included trials with respect to study population and design are comparable, (3) all known confounders and effect modifiers are identified a priori and accounted for in the analysis, (4) outcomes should be similar in definition and assessment, (5) baseline characteristics are reported before and after adjustment, along with weights, and (6) key details of a MAIC are reported. In the three MAIC publications in SMA to date, the quality of analysis and reporting varied greatly. Various sources of bias in the MAICs were identified, including lack of control for key confounders and effect modifiers, inconsistency in outcome definitions across trials, imbalances in important baseline characteristics after weighting, and lack of reporting key elements. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating MAICs according to best practices when assessing the conduct and reporting of MAICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Efficacy of ponatinib-based treatment for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL) has not been compared to imatinib-based treatments in head-to-head clinical trials. We evaluated its efficacy versus imatinib-based regimens using a matching adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Two ponatinib studies were used: the phase 2 MDACC study of ponatinib + hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) in adult patients and the phase 2 GIMEMA LAL1811 study of ponatinib + steroids in patients > 60 years/unfit for intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplant. Studies on imatinib as first-line treatment in adults with Ph + ALL were identified using a systematic literature search. Population adjustment was based on the prognostic factors and effect modifiers identified by clinical experts. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for complete molecular response (CMR). Results: The systematic literature search identified two studies (GRAAPH-2005 and NCT00038610) reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib + hyper-CVAD and one study reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-based consolidation (CSI57ADE10). Ponatinib + hyper-CVAD prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib + hyper-CVAD. The adjusted HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS was 0.35 (0.17–0.74) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 0.35 (0.18–0.70) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610; the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 12.11 (3.77–38.87) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 5.65 (2.02–15.76) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610. Ponatinib + steroids prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-containing consolidation. The adjusted HR (95% CI) for OS was 0.24 (0.09–0.64) and the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 6.20 (1.60–24.00) for GIMEMA LAL1811 vs. CSI57ADE10. Conclusion: In adults with newly diagnosed Ph + ALL, first-line treatment with ponatinib was associated with better outcomes than first-line treatment with imatinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including certolizumab pegol (CZP), are effective treatment options for the management of non-radiographic spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). In the absence of head-to-head comparisons in nr-axSpA, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to better understand the comparative efficacy of CZP vs. other bDMARDs. Methods: Literature searches were conducted in October 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials in patients with nr-axSpA who had failed at least one non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and were treated with bDMARDs. Outcomes of interest included the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and spinal pain score. Comparative efficacy was examined using a series of Bucher ITCs in subgroups matched by prior exposure to bDMARDs, disease duration, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) levels/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) status, and timepoints, to ensure comparability between studies. Results: At 12–16 weeks, treatment with CZP was significantly more likely to achieve ASAS20/40 response and ASDAS-inactive disease status vs. etanercept (ETN), ixekizumab (IXE), and secukinumab (SEC). CZP showed statistically significant improvement in BASDAI, BASFI, and total spine pain score over adalimumab (ADA), ETN, and IXE, and in BASFI over SEC. Among patients with objective signs of inflammation (OSI; elevated CRP levels and/or inflammation on MRI at baseline), CZP had a statistically significant advantage over ETN and SEC (with or without loading dose) in achieving ASAS40, whereas the comparisons with other bDMARDs did not show any statistically significant differences. Conclusion: In the overall matched population, CZP performed significantly better than most comparators in improving the clinical outcomes. Among patients with OSI, CZP was found to be superior to SEC (in the MRI−/CRP + and MRI + /CRP− subgroups) and ETN (in the MRI + /CRP− subgroup) and it was comparable to golimumab and IXE across the different OSI subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) is a major cause of increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Fecal-microbiota-based therapies are recommended for rCDI on completion of standard-of-care (SoC) antibiotics to prevent further recurrence: these therapies include conventional fecal-microbiota transplantation and the US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies REBYOTA® (RBL) and VOWST Oral Spores™ (VOS). As an alternative to microbiota-based therapies, bezlotoxumab, a monoclonal antibody, is used as adjuvant to SoC antibiotics to prevent rCDI. There are no head-to-head clinical trials comparing different microbiota-based therapies or bezlotoxumab for rCDI. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify clinical trials on rCDI treatments and assess the feasibility of using them to conduct an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). The feasibility analysis determined that trial heterogeneity, particularly relating to inclusion criteria, may significantly compromise ITC and prevent cross-trial comparisons. Our analysis underlines the need to adopt standardized protocols to ensure comparability across trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Three novel androgen receptor inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. All three therapies have demonstrated prolonged metastasis-free survival in their respective phase III trials, with differing safety profiles. The objective of this study was to compare the mean per-patient costs of all-cause adverse events (AEs) requiring hospitalization between darolutamide versus apalutamide and enzalutamide for nmCRPC in the USA.Methods: All-cause grade ≥ 3 AEs with corresponding any-grade AEs reported among at least 10% of patients in any arm of the ARAMIS (darolutamide), SPARTAN (apalutamide), and PROSPER (enzalutamide) trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analyses. After matching-adjusted indirect comparison, AE costs were calculated by multiplying the AE rates from the trials by their respective unit costs of hospitalization taken from the US Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database. Sensitivity analyses which further included any-grade AEs reported among at least 5% of patients were also performed.Results: After reweighting and adjusting for the trials' placebo arms, the mean per-patient AE costs were $1021 and $387 lower for darolutamide than for apalutamide and enzalutamide, respectively, over the trials' duration (SPARTAN and PROSPER, 43 months; ARAMIS, 48 months). For darolutamide vs. apalutamide, the largest drivers of the per-patient cost differences were fracture (adjusted difference $416), hypertension ($143), and rash ($219); for darolutamide vs. enzalutamide, they were fatigue not including asthenia ($290) and hypertension including increased blood pressure (i.e., any AE of hypertension or with elevated blood pressure not yet classified as hypertension) ($60). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary results.Conclusions: Patients with nmCRPC treated with darolutamide in ARAMIS incurred lower AE-related costs (USD), as determined using HCUP costing data, compared with patients treated with either apalutamide (in SPARTAN) or enzalutamide (in PROSPER). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β2-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.Methods: This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).Results: The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV1 at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV1 (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).Conclusion: The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The phase 3 APOLLO study demonstrated significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical responses with daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Pd) versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). On the basis of these results and those from the phase 1b EQUULEUS trial, D-Pd was approved in this patient population. In the absence of head-to-head data comparing D-Pd with further standard of care (SOC) therapies, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can provide important information to help optimize treatment selection. The objective of this study was to indirectly compare PFS improvement with D-Pd versus daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) and D-Pd versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with RRMM.Methods: Patient-level data were from APOLLO, EQUULEUS, and CASTOR. Three methods of adjusting imbalances in baseline characteristics including stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW), cardinality matching (CM), and propensity score matching (PSM) were initially considered. CM offers mathematically guaranteed largest matched sample meeting pre-specified maximum standardized mean difference criteria for matching covariates. sIPTW and PSM were based on propensity scores derived from logistic regression. Feasibility assessment of the PSM method returned too low effective sample size to support a meaningful comparison. CM was chosen as the base case and sIPTW as a sensitivity analysis.Results: After harmonized eligibility criteria were applied, 253, 104, and 122 patients from the D-Pd, D-Vd, and Vd cohorts, respectively, were included in the ITC analyses. Some imbalances in baseline characteristics were identified between D-Pd and D-Vd/Vd cohorts that remained after adjustment. PFS hazard ratios showed significant improvement for D-Pd over D-Vd and Vd for CM and sIPTW analyses.Conclusions: Results showed consistent PFS benefit for D-Pd versus D-Vd and Vd regardless of the adjustment technique used. These findings support the use of D-Pd versus D-Vd or Vd in patients with difficult-to-treat RRMM.Trial Registration: NCT03180736; NCT02136134, NCT01998971. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Indirect treatment comparison was used to compare approved doses of baricitinib and dupilumab for treating adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy. Methods: Baricitinib and dupilumab were compared (Bucher method) at weeks 4 and 16. Performance in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) was analyzed in patients with inadequate response or inadvisable to topical therapies (population A) and cyclosporine (population B). Population A was additionally examined as monotherapy. Results: For the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75, baricitinib and dupilumab were similar. A ≥ 4-point improvement in itch numerical rating scale (NRS) was significantly more likely with baricitinib 4 mg than dupilumab in population A as monotherapy (RR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.22, 5.61, p = 0.013) and in TCS combination at week 4. These differences were not significant by week 16. For the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), baricitinib 4 mg and dupilumab were similar on mean difference in change from baseline (MDcfb), though some differences were seen between baricitinib 2 mg and dupilumab at week 16 for the population A monotherapy (MDcfb = 2.05, 95% CI 0.53, 3.56, p = 0.016) and TCS combination therapy (MDcfb = 2.48, 95% CI 0.46, 4.50, p = 0.016) groups, and in population B (MDcfb = 3.38 95% CI 1.18, 5.58, p = 0.003). Conclusions: Baricitinib potentially offers more rapid improvement in itch while providing similar efficacy on EASI75 and DLQI outcomes compared with dupilumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide (TAFA + LEN) received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval and conditional European Medicines Agency approval for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant. This study investigates the relative efficacy of TAFA + LEN versus comparator treatments. Methods: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) of TAFA + LEN were performed using data from L-MIND, and comparator studies assessing rituximab-based combination therapies, including polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (POLA + BR) bendamustine + rituximab (BR), and gemcitabine + oxaliplatin + rituximab (R-GEMOX) to provide relative efficacy estimates for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response rate (CRR). Patient-level data from L-MIND were weighted to match reported distributions of clinically validated prognostic factors and effect modifiers in comparator trials. MAIC results versus multiple BR studies were pooled using meta-analysis. Results: MAICs were feasible versus POLA + BR and BR. Compared to POLA + BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly longer DOR [hazard ratio (HR) 0.34 (95% CI 0.12, 0.98); p = 0.045]. Due to concerns about the proportional hazard assumption for OS and PFS, separate HRs were estimated before and after 4 months of follow-up. OS after 4 months, was significantly greater for TAFA + LEN versus POLA + BR [HR 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.90); p = 0.026]. Compared with BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly improved OS [GO29365 comparator trial: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.82); p = 0.014], PFS (pooled data: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.29, 0.53); p < 0.001], DOR [pooled data: HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.25, 0.50); p < 0.001], and CRR [pooled data: odds ratio 2.43 (95% CI 1.33, 4.41); p = 0.004]. Conclusion: In MAIC analyses, treatment with TAFA + LEN for R/R DLBCL provided better OS and PFS outcomes than standard treatment regimens. Validation from large, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials is required to confirm these results. Plain Language Summary: Tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide has been recently approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. There are no clinical trials to directly compare the outcomes of tafasitamab + lenalidomide against other treatments for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons allow an estimate of the relative efficacy of treatments to be derived in the absence of head-to-head comparisons from clinical trials. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons analyses utilizing data from previously published clinical trials were conducted to compare the combination of tafasitamab + lenalidomide against 3 standard treatments for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab, bendamustine + rituximab, and rituximab + gemcitabine + oxaliplatin. Compared to those treated with polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab, patients treated with TAFA + LEN maintained their response to treatment for longer and are more likely to experience long-term survival. When compared to those treated with bendamustine + rituximab, patients treated with TAFA + LEN had increased survival, a higher level of response, and maintained their response to treatment for longer. Overall, the findings suggest that treatment with TAFA + LEN for R/R DLBCL is likely to result in significantly better outcomes compared with standard rituximab-based treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, three published phase III trials highlighted the superiority of investigational drugs compared to placebo, thus leading to their approval in the second-line setting. We report here a MAIC of second-line MKI options for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib using individual real-world data of regorafenib and aggregate data of second-line cabozantinib from the CELESTIAL trial. Methods: Data from 278 patients who received regorafenib as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure for unresectable HCC were used as IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the CELESTIAL trial in the subset of patients who received sorafenib as the only prior therapy. Survival medians and rates were obtained from Kaplan–Meier curves, and differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib groups were explored through Cox regression adjusted for weights originating from MAIC. Results: The median OS of the weighted regorafenib group was 11.1 months (IQR: 5.6–16.4) and 11.3 (IQR: 6.7–22.4) for cabozantinib; HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.62–1.09). The median PFS of the weighted regorafenib group was 3.0 months (IQR: 1.9–4.8) and 5.5 (IQR: 2.3–9.3) for cabozantinib; HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.41–0.62). In the subgroup who received prior sorafenib for < 3 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 6.5 months (IQR: 4.7–10.9) and 9.5 months (IQR: 5.9–18.2) for cabozantinib; HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.39–1.16). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for 3 to < 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 8.0 months (IQR: 4.2–15.2) and 11.5 (IQR: 6.5–23.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.66 (95%CI 0.42–1.02). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for ≥ 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 13.4 (IQR: 8.1–46.5) and 12.3 (IQR: 6.6–22.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.52–1.51). Conclusion: Our results confirmed no differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib in terms of OS. However, in earlier progressors on prior sorafenib a larger benefit might be expected from cabozantinib treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Single-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; BLENREP) demonstrated deep and durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody (DREAMM-2; NCT03525678). Methods: At the time of this study, STORM Part 2, NCT02336815 (selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone; sel + dex) was systematically identified as the only feasible comparator to the DREAMM-2 cohort. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) evaluated efficacy and safety of belamaf (2.5 mg/kg; n = 97) versus sel + dex (80 mg + 20 mg, respectively; n = 123). Populations were weighted for clinically validated effect modifiers and prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), and safety. The relative efficacy of belamaf versus standard of care (SoC) on OS was estimated by a Bucher indirect treatment comparison using the MAIC-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS of belamaf (DREAMM-2) versus sel + dex (STORM Part 2) and a HR adjusted for refractoriness to carfilzomib and high-risk cytogenetics of sel + dex (STORM) versus SoC (MAMMOTH). Results: Belamaf demonstrated improved OS (HR 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.34, 0.83; p = 0.005) and DoR (0.41; 0.21, 0.83; p = 0.013) versus sel + dex. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, TTR, and PFS. Belamaf had a favorable safety profile for most evaluable hematologic (any-grade, Grade 3–4) and non-hematologic (any-grade) adverse events versus sel + dex. Significantly improved OS was observed with belamaf versus SoC (0.29; 0.16, 0.54; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Single-agent belamaf represents a new treatment option for triple-class refractory patients with RRMM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have exhausted their treatment options and are deemed palliative. CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has recently been introduced as a new option for these patients. Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is an investigational CAR T-cell therapy that has shown promising activity in this setting. We used an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methodology to compare liso-cel, using individual patient-level data from the TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044) trial, to salvage chemotherapy, using summary-level data from the SCHOLAR-1 study, for the treatment of patients with R/R LBCL. Standardized mean differences were used to evaluate imbalances between the TRANSCEND and SCHOLAR-1 studies. MAIC was conducted to determine the relative efficacy of liso-cel vs. salvage chemotherapy with regard to overall survival, complete response rate, and objective response rate. For all efficacy outcomes assessed, comparisons of clinical factors before MAIC showed that five of seven baseline characteristics were similar between the TRANSCEND and SCHOLAR-1 studies; however, age and R/R to last therapy status differed between studies, thus requiring matching and adjusting to ensure the validity of this analysis. The base case analyses demonstrated a significantly lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.6; p < 0.001) with significantly higher rates of complete response (odds ratio, 12.9; 95% CI 8.0-20.7) and objective response (odds ratio, 7.0; 95% CI 4.6-10.5) for patients treated with liso-cel than patients treated with salvage chemotherapy. MAIC comparisons demonstrated favorable efficacy for liso-cel compared with salvage chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with R/R LBCL.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631044. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The phase 3 ALCYONE study demonstrated significantly longer progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) and higher overall response rates (ORR) with daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) versus VMP alone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In Latin America, bortezomib- or thalidomide-based regimens remain standard of care (SoC) for this population. No head-to-head trials have compared D-VMP with SoC regimens used in Latin America. Methods: Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for baseline differences between patient populations and compare outcomes for D-VMP versus SoC regimens used in Latin America. Data for the D-VMP cohort were from the D-VMP arm of the ALCYONE trial (n = 350). Data for the SoC cohort were from the retrospective, observational Hemato-Oncology Latin America (HOLA) study, which included patients with NDMM who did not receive a transplant (n = 729). Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression. Exact, optimal, and nearest-neighbor PSM were applied to pick the best-performing method. Doubly robust estimation was the base case, since some baseline imbalances persisted. Results: All 350 patients from the D-VMP arm of ALCYONE were included in OS/PFS analyses and 338 in ORR analysis; 478 and 324 patients, respectively, from HOLA were included in these analyses. Naïve comparison revealed important differences in baseline characteristics (age, chronic kidney disease, hypercalcemia, and International Staging System [ISS] stage). After nearest-neighbor matching, baseline characteristics, except ISS stage, were well balanced; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for OS (hazard ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25–0.66; P = 0.002) and PFS (hazard ratio = 0.48; 95% CI 0.35–0.67; P < 0.001). After exact matching, imbalances remained in age and ISS stage; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for ORR (odds ratio = 5.44; 95% CI 2.65–11.82; P < 0.001). Conclusion: In transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM, D-VMP showed superior effectiveness versus bortezomib- and thalidomide-based regimens, supporting adoption of daratumumab-containing regimens in Latin America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies can be effective for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), a cancer with limited treatment options and poor outcomes, particularly for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are CAR T-cell therapies approved by regulatory bodies for certain patients with r/r DLBCL on the basis of demonstrated treatment effects in their pivotal single-arm trials, ZUMA-1 and JULIET, respectively. In the absence of head-to-head trials, the question of whether a valid indirect treatment comparison (ITC) between axi-cel and tisa-cel could be performed using existing evidence is of interest to patients, physicians, payers, and other stakeholders. This article addresses that question by summarizing the current evidence from clinical trials and real-world studies and discussing the challenges and limitations of potential analytical approaches associated with an ITC. Two ITC approaches attempting to adjust for cross-trial heterogeneity between ZUMA-1 and JULIET, matching-adjusted indirect comparison and regression-prediction model analysis, were evaluated. After evaluating the current clinical trial data and real-world evidence, and present and prior ITC analyses of axi-cel and tisa-cel, the authors conclude that a valid comparative analysis is not currently feasible. The substantial differences (e.g., timing of leukapheresis and enrollment, use of bridging chemotherapy [90% in JULIET vs. 0% in ZUMA-1], lymphodepleting regimens) between the two trials' designs and patient populations preclude a robust and reliable ITC. No other approaches are able to account for such differences. The current real-world data are still too immature to be used for ITCs. Thus, drawing conclusions from such ITCs should be avoided to prevent misinforming treatment choices or limiting patient access to effective treatment options. Additional data from ongoing or future real-world studies with appropriate statistical analyses are needed to provide insights into the comparative effectiveness and safety of these two treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Advances in Therapy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Propranolol is recommended as first-line treatment for preventing migraine attacks; acupuncture has not been compared with propranolol in a head-to-head trial. Objective: To compare acupuncture with propranolol using indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis. Method: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Randomized controlled trials comparing acupuncture or propranolol with sham acupuncture, placebo, waiting-list control or usual care were included. We extracted information from the included trials using a standardized extraction form. The primary outcome was migraine episodes. The secondary outcomes included migraine days, migraine frequency, and adverse events. Results: We included 19 RCTs (n = 3656) after screening 1078 articles. The analysis showed that acupuncture had a significant advantage over propranolol in reducing migraine episodes over a 4-week period (SMD − 0.74, 95% CI − 1.04 to − 0.44). Acupuncture also had a significant advantage over waiting-list control in decreasing migraine frequency (SMD − 1.57, 95% CI − 2.08 to − 1.06). Acupuncture caused fewer adverse events than propranolol (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.11–5.94). Conclusions: Acupuncture had a better effect than propranolol in reducing migraine episodes in indirect comparison. The result should be confirmed in subsequent head-to-head studies. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018108585 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: No head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies.Methods: Patient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses.Results: Analyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina.Conclusion: Results from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms.Funding: Pfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ropinirole and pramipexole as adjunctive therapies to levodopa (L-dopa) for the management of advanced Parkinson's disease (PD), via a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Methods: Twenty-one double-blind randomised controlled trials of patients with advanced PD with motor fluctuations receiving L-dopa comparing ropinirole or pramipexole with comparators were identified from 2550 publications. Bayesian indirect comparison methods were applied to independently review efficacy outcomes including off-time reduction, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-Activity of Daily Living (UPDRS-ADL) and UPDRS-motor scores, and safety outcomes including adverse events (AE) and patient withdrawals, to determine indirect treatment comparison mean differences (MD) or hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: The indirect efficacy comparison resulted in a statistically nonsignificant off-time reduction difference (hours) of ropinirole-sustained release (SR) versus pramipexole-immediate release (MD - 0.25; 95% CI - 0.71, 0.21) and ropinirole-SR versus pramipexole-extended release (ER) (MD 0.18; 95% CI - 0.40, 0.76). Ropinirole-SR adjunctive treatment showed a tendency towards more improvement in UPDRS-ADL score (MD 1.24; 95% CI 0.23, 2.24) than adjunctive treatment of pramipexole-ER. Pramipexole-ER may be less likely to induce somnolence as an AE compared with ropinirole-SR (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23, 0.89). However, there were no statistically significant differences in UPDRS-motor score reduction, incidence of dyskinesia, hallucination, hypotension, insomnia and nausea, or withdrawals due to AE, for any reason.Conclusion: Adjunctive therapy with ropinirole-SR or pramipexole appears to offer similar efficacy and tolerability in patients with advanced PD on the basis of this indirect comparison.Funding: GSK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Infants with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type 1 typically face a decline in motor function and a severely shortened life expectancy. Clinical trials for SMA type 1 therapies, onasemnogene abeparvovec (AVXS-101) and nusinersen, demonstrated meaningful improvements in efficacy (e.g., overall survival) but there were no head-to-head clinical trials assessing comparative efficacy. This study estimated the treatment effects of AVXS-101 relative to nusinersen for the treatment of SMA type 1.Methods: Overall survival, event-free survival (no death or need to use permanent assisted ventilation), improvement in motor function [increase of ≥ 4 points in Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP-INTEND) score from baseline], and motor milestone achievements (head control, rolling over, and sitting unassisted) reported in the onasemnogene abeparvovec (AVXS-101-CL-101; NCT02122952) and nusinersen (ENDEAR; NCT02193074) clinical trials were indirectly compared using frequentist and Bayesian approaches.Results: Among symptomatic infants with SMA type 1, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one more death with AVXS-101 instead of nusinersen was 6.2 [95% confidence intervals (CI) = 4.1-12.2], and the probability of preventing death was 20% higher for patients treated with AVXS-101 than nusinersen [risk ratio (RR) = 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3]. For event-free survival, the NNT to prevent one more event was 2.6 (95% CI 2.0-3.6) and RR was 1.6 (95% CI 1.4-1.9). For improvement in motor function, NNT was 3.5 (95% CI 2.6-5.3) and RR was 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.6). For milestone achievements, the NNTs were 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.9), 1.5 (95% CI 1.1-2.5), and 1.2 (95% CI 1.0-1.5); RRs 4.2 (95% CI 2.6-6.7), 7.8 (95% CI 3.6-17.0), and 11.2 (95% CI 5.1-24.5) for head control, rolling over, and sitting unassisted, respectively. Results were similar using the Bayesian approach.Conclusion: This indirect comparison (AVXS-101-CL-101 vs. ENDEAR) among symptomatic SMA type 1 infants suggests that AVXS-101 may have an efficacy advantage relative to nusinersen for overall survival, independence from permanent assisted ventilation, motor function, and motor milestones.Funding: AveXis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Comparative data on the efficacies of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β-agonist (LABA) combinations for the treatment of moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) is to assess the relative efficacies of available open combinations (delivered via separate inhalers) and fixed-dose combinations (FDCs, delivered via a single inhaler). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥8-week duration in adults aged ≥40 years with COPD that compared LAMA + LABA combinations with each other, with tiotropium (TIO), or with placebo. Data on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV) and on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks were extracted from these RCTs and analyzed using a NMA in a Bayesian framework. Results: Data from 44 RCTs were included in the NMA. All FDCs showed improvements relative to placebo in terms of trough FEV, SGRQ total score, and TDI focal score above clinically relevant thresholds, with the exception of TIO/olodaterol and aclidinium/formoterol, both of which failed to show clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ score at 24 weeks. All FDCs demonstrated reduced rescue medication use versus placebo. Open combinations demonstrated improved efficacy in all outcomes versus placebo, but these improvements did not consistently exceed clinically relevant thresholds for SGRQ and TDI scores. All once-daily FDCs showed improved efficacy versus TIO, but improvements were less consistently observed versus TIO with open dual combinations and combinations containing formoterol or salmeterol administered twice daily. Relative probabilities of improvement between FDCs highlighted potential between-class differences for trough FEV but suggested little potential for differences in patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion: LAMA + LABA combinations generally showed improved outcomes versus placebo and TIO. FDCs appeared to perform better than open dual combinations. A potential effectiveness gradient was observed between FDCs for objectively assessed functional outcomes, although further prospective trials are required to confirm these findings. Funding: GSK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have been achieved in recent years: immunotherapies and targeted therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over older agents such as granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), dacarbazine, and glycoprotein peptide vaccine (gp100) in pivotal phase 3 trials. It is important to compare therapies to guide the treatment decision-making process, and establishing the relationship between older agents can strengthen the networks of evidence for newer therapies. We report the outcome of an indirect comparison of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 in metastatic melanoma through meta-analysis of absolute treatment effect.Methods: A systematic literature review identified trials for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A valid network meta-analysis was not feasible: treatment-specific meta-analysis was conducted. A published algorithm was used to adjust overall survival estimates from trials of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 for heterogeneity in baseline prognostic factors. Survival estimates were compared in three patient groups: stage IIIB-IV M1c, stage IIIB-IV M1a, and stage IV M1b/c.Results: One trial of GM-CSF, four of dacarbazine, and one of gp100 were included in the analysis. After adjusting for differences in baseline prognostic factors, median overall survival (OS) in all patient groups was longer for those receiving GM-CSF than for those receiving dacarbazine or gp100. The observed survival over time for GM-CSF was similar to the adjusted survival for dacarbazine and greater than for gp100 in all patient groups.Conclusion: The relative treatment effect of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 has been reliably estimated by adjusting for differences in baseline prognostic factors. Results suggest that OS with GM-CSF is at least as good as with dacarbazine and greater than with gp100. Given the role of these agents as controls in phase 3 trials of new immunotherapies and targeted agents, these results can be used to contextualize the efficacy of newer therapies.Funding: Amgen Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily compared to tiotropium 18 μg once daily in adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Methods: A systematic literature review performed in March 2014, using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, identified 17 randomized placebo-controlled trials, (tiotropium n = 15; aclidinium/formoterol n = 2). Outcomes of interest were: bronchodilation (peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), COPD symptoms [Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and % of responders (>1 unit improvement)] and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) [St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and % responders (>4 unit improvement)], % of patients with ≥1 exacerbations, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), hospitalization and mortality, all at 24 weeks. In the absence of head-to-head trials between aclidinium/formoterol and tiotropium, a Bayesian indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was used with placebo as common control.Results: Regarding bronchodilation, aclidinium/formoterol was found to be more efficacious than tiotropium at peak FEV1, with mean difference in change from baseline (DCFB) 143 mL [95% credible interval (CrI): 112, 174] and at trough FEV1 [DCFB 26 mL (95% CrI -2, 55)]. Aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in improving dyspnea symptoms measured by TDI [DCFB 0.54 points (95% CrI 0.09, 0.99); odds ratio (OR) of responders 1.51 (95% CrI 1.11, 2.06)]. SGRQ results are comparable for aclidinium/formoterol versus tiotropium [DCFB -0.52 (95% CrI -2.21, 1.17); OR of responders 1.16 (95% CrI 0.47, 2.87)]. The ITC results suggest similar safety profiles regarding AEs, SAEs and hospitalization.Conclusion: Based on the ITC, aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in terms of lung function and symptom control while providing comparable HRQoL results and safety profile.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare different methods of adjusted indirect comparisons that can be used to investigate the relative bioavailability of different generic products. To achieve this goal, generic artemether/lumefantrine 20/120 mg tablets that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) were selected as model products for study. Methods: Data from three bioequivalence studies conducted independently that compared three generics with the same reference product were used to indirectly determine the relative bioavailability between the generics themselves. Results: The different methods of indirect comparison examined in this study provide consistent results. Methods based on the assumption of a large sample size give slightly narrower 90 % confidence intervals. Therefore, the use of methods based on the t test is recommended. Given the precision of the area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) data, it is possible to conclude that the extent of exposure of artemether and lumefantrine is bioequivalent between the different generics studied. However, given the precision of the drug peak concentration (C) data, it is not possible to demonstrate equivalence within the conventional acceptance range for all comparisons; it is possible to conclude bioequivalence within the widened acceptance range 75-133 %. Conclusions: From a clinical viewpoint, not only are these prequalified generics bioequivalent and interchangeable with the reference product (Coartem, Novartis), but also the existing indirect evidence makes it possible to conclude that these WHO prequalified products are bioequivalent between themselves with respect to the AUC. The lack of the necessary precision to demonstrate bioequivalence between generics with respect to the C within the conventional acceptance range does not preclude considering them as interchangeable, if necessary, since C is considered to be of less clinical relevance for the relevant therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]