Search

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. [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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a significant contributor to healthcare costs and morbidity due to high rates of recurrence. Currently, available antibiotic treatment strategies further disrupt the fecal microbiome and do not address the alterations in commensal flora (dysbiosis) that set the stage for CDI. Advances in microbiome-based research have resulted in the development of new agents, classified as live biotherapeutic products (LBPs), for preventing recurrent CDI (rCDI) by restoring eubiosis. Prior to the LBPs, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) was available for this purpose; however, lack of large-scale availability and safety concerns have remained barriers to its widespread use. The LBPs are an exciting development, but questions remain. Some are derived directly from human stool while other developmental products contain a defined microbial consortium manufactured ex vivo, and they may be composed of either living bacteria or their spores, making it difficult to compare members of this heterogenous drug class to one another. None have been studied head-to head or against FMT in preventing rCDI. As a class, they have considerable variability in their biologic composition, biopharmaceutic science, route of administration, stages of development, and clinical trial data. This review will start by explaining the role of dysbiosis in CDI, then give the details of the biopharmaceutical components for the LBPs which are approved or in development including how they differ from FMT and from one another. We then discuss the clinical trials of the LBPs currently approved for rCDI and end with the future clinical directions of LBPs beyond C. difficile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Etranacogene dezaparvovec gene therapy for haemophilia B demonstrated superior efficacy at 24 months in reducing bleeds versus a ≥6‐month lead‐in period of prophylaxis with FIX products in the phase 3 trial, HOPE‐B. In the absence of head‐to‐head comparisons of etranacogene dezaparvovec versus FIX products, indirect treatment comparisons (ITC) can be used. Aim: To compare the efficacy of etranacogene dezaparvovec versus rIX‐FP, rFIXFc and N9‐GP using ITC, and support HOPE‐B results. Methods: Data were leveraged from Phase 3 pivotal trials: HOPE‐B, PROLONG‐9FP, B‐LONG and Paradigm 2. Annualised bleeding rates (ABR), spontaneous (AsBR) and joint (AjBR) bleeding rates, percentage of patients with no bleeds, and FIX consumption were assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighting and matching adjusted indirect comparisons. Results: Etranacogene dezaparvovec demonstrated statistically significantly lower bleeding rates versus all comparators. Rate ratios for ABR, AsBR and AjBR versus rIX‐FP were 0.19 (p <.0001), 0.08 (p <.0001) and 0.09 (p <.0001), respectively. Rate ratios for ABR, AsBR and AjBR versus rFIXFc were 0.14 (p <.0001), 0.13 (p =.0083) and 0.15 (p =.0111), respectively. Rate ratios for ABR and AsBR, versus N9‐GP were 0.24 (p =.0231) and 0.13 (p =.0071), respectively. Etranacogene dezaparvovec demonstrated significantly higher percentage of patients with no bleeds versus rIX‐FP and rFIXFc; odds ratios: 17.60 (p <.0001) and 5.65 (p =.0037), respectively. Etranacogene dezaparvovec resulted in significantly lower FIX consumption than all comparators. Conclusions: ITC suggests that etranacogene dezaparvovec offers patients with haemophilia B (≤2% of normal FIX expression) a single dose treatment that can significantly reduce bleeding rates and eliminate routine infusions associated with FIX therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background The monoclonal antibodies dupilumab (fully human) and lebrikizumab (humanized) have both demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trials of atopic dermatitis (AD). In the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons between dupilumab and lebrikizumab, Bucher indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), in which treatment effects are anchored to a common comparator (e.g. placebo), provide a robust and widely accepted method of evaluating the relative efficacy of drugs, and can offer a useful framework for decision-making. Objectives To report the results of a placebo-adjusted Bucher ITC comparing maintenance of efficacy outcomes between dupilumab and lebrikizumab monotherapy at Week 52 in patients with moderate-to-severe AD who had achieved ≥75% improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), or Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16. Methods Placebo-adjusted Bucher ITC utilized phase 3 trial data from SOLO-CONTINUE (dupilumab; NCT02395133) and ADVOCATE 1 and 2 (lebrikizumab; NCT04146363 and NCT04178967) maintenance phase were used. Data at Week 52 was used with the following doses: 300mg dupilumab every 2 weeks (q2w) or placebo, and 250mg lebrikizumab q2w or every 4 weeks (q4w) or placebo. No adjustments were made for baseline characteristics, and missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation (NRI), excluding patients who had received topical corticosteroids during the maintenance phase of ADVOCATE 1 and 2. Outcomes included proportion of patients maintaining IGA 0/1, EASI-75, EASI-90, and 4-point improvement in peak pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score (PP-NRS ≥4) at Week 52 from SOLO-CONTINUE and ADVOCATE 1 and 2 maintenance phase baseline (Week 16). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. Results Comparison of baseline disease characteristics indicated that the patient populations enrolled in ADVOCATE 1 and 2 maintenance phase baseline presented with lower disease severity compared with SOLO-CONTINUE, based on percentage body surface area affected. However, mean EASI and pruritus NRS baseline scores were similar in the compared trials. This analysis favored dupilumab for all outcomes evaluated at Week 52. Comparing q2w dosing, dupilumab had significantly higher ORs for EASI-75 (OR=4.15, 95%CI 1.41–12.18); EASI-90 (OR=3.72, 95%CI 1.09–12.76); IGA 0/1 (OR=4.62, 95%CI 1.02–20.92); PP-NRS ≥4 (OR=11.96, 95%CI 1.24–115.34). Compared with lebrikizumab q4w, dupilumab q2w maintained significantly higher EASI-75 OR (OR=3.53, 95%CI 1.18–10.53), while OR for the other 3 outcomes favored dupilumab, but did not reach statistical significance: EASI-90 (OR=3.31, 95%CI 0.97–11.33), IGA 0/1 (OR=3.31, 95%CI 0.73–15.08), and PP-NRS ≥4 (OR=8.79, 95%CI 0.91–84.81). Conclusions Based on a Bucher ITC utilizing data from trials with similar designs, patients treated with dupilumab q2w demonstrated higher likelihood of maintaining improvements in signs and symptoms at Week 52 compared with patients treated with lebrikizumab q2w or q4w. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background Dupilumab and lebrikizumab are both monoclonal antibodies that have demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trials of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Dupilumab targets both interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, and is fully human, whereas lebrikizumab selectively targets IL-13 and is humanized. However, no direct head-to-head clinical trials have been performed to compare efficacy of dupilumab vs lebrikizumab in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS). Bucher indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), in which treatment effects are anchored to a common comparator (e.g. placebo), provide a robust and widely accepted method of evaluating the relative efficacy of drugs in the absence of direct comparisons. Objective To report the results of a placebo-adjusted Bucher ITC of 16-week therapy for moderate-to-severe AD, comparing the efficacy of dupilumab every 2 weeks (q2w) (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS) vs lebrikizumab q2w (ADhere), in combination with TCS. Methods Placebo-adjusted Bucher ITC was conducted using published phase 3 trial data from LIBERTY AD CHRONOS (NCT02260986) and ADhere (NCT04250337). For both studies, data from the 16-week period were used, employing non-responder imputation, with the following doses: 300mg dupilumab + TCS q2w, or placebo + TCS, and 250mg lebrikizumab q2w + TCS, or placebo + TCS. No adjustments were made for baseline characteristics. Outcomes included proportion of patients achieving ≥75% improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), Investigator's Global Assessment score 0/1 (IGA-0/1; clear/almost clear), 4-point improvement from baseline in peak pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score (PP-NRS ≥4), and ≥4-point improvement from baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI ≥4). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. Results Examination of baseline disease characteristics indicated that the patient populations enrolled in ADhere presented with lower disease severity compared with LIBERTY AD CHRONOS, based on IGA; however, PP-NRS, EASI, and DLQI scores were similar between both trials. This placebo-adjusted Bucher ITC favored dupilumab vs lebrikizumab with TCS combination treatment for all outcomes evaluated. Patients treated with dupilumab + TCS had a significantly higher likelihood of achieving EASI-75 (OR=2.39, 95%CI 1.10–5.19) and PP-NRS ≥4 (OR=2.63, 95%CI 1.17–5.95) at Week 16 vs those treated with lebrikizumab + TCS. OR for the endpoints IGA 0/1 and DLQI ≥4 favored dupilumab, but did not reach statistical significance: IGA 0/1 (OR=1.90, 95%CI 0.81–4.42), DLQI ≥4 (OR=2.35, 95%CI 0.94–5.87). Conclusion A placebo-anchored Bucher ITC approach showed that the likelihood of achieving improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life is higher for patients treated with dupilumab + TCS vs lebrikizumab + TCS. [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]

Background: Adaptive platform trials allow randomized controlled comparisons of multiple treatments using a common infrastructure and the flexibility to adapt key design features during the study. Nonetheless, they have been criticized due to the potential for time trends in the underlying risk level of the population. Such time trends lead to confounding between design features and risk level, which may introduce bias favoring one or more treatments. This is particularly true when experimental treatments are not all randomized during the same time period as the control, leading to the potential for bias from non-concurrent controls. Methods: Two analysis methods addressing this bias are stratification and adjustment. Stratification uses only comparisons between treatment cohorts randomized during identical time periods and does not use non-concurrent randomizations. Adjustment uses a modeled analysis including time period adjustment, allowing all data to be used, even from periods without concurrent randomization. We show that these competing approaches may be embedded in a common framework using network meta-analysis principles. We interpret the stages between adaptations in a platform trial as separate fixed design trials. This allows platform trials to be viewed as networks of direct randomized comparisons and indirect non-randomized comparisons. Network meta-analysis methodology can be re-purposed to aggregate the total information from a platform trial and to transparently decompose this total information into direct randomized evidence and indirect non-randomized evidence. This allows sensitivity to indirect information to be assessed and the two analysis methods to be clearly compared. Results: Simulations of platform trials were analyzed using a network approach implemented in the netmeta package in R. The results demonstrated bias of unadjusted methods in the presence of time trends in risk level. Adjustment and stratification were both unbiased when direct evidence and indirect evidence were consistent. Network tests of inconsistency may be used to diagnose inconsistency when it exists. In an illustrative network analysis of one of the treatment comparisons from the STAMPEDE platform trial in metastatic prostate cancer, indirect comparisons using non-concurrent controls were inconsistent with the information from direct randomized comparisons. This supports the primary analysis approach of STAMPEDE, which used only direct randomized comparisons. Conclusion: Network meta-analysis provides a natural methodology for analyzing the network of direct and indirect treatment comparisons from a platform trial. Such analyses provide transparent separation of direct and indirect evidence, allowing assessment of the impact of non-concurrent controls. We recommend time-stratified analysis of concurrently controlled comparisons for primary analyses, with time-adjusted analyses incorporating non-concurrent controls reserved for secondary analyses. However, regardless of which methodology is used, a network analysis provides a useful supplement to the primary analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Efficacy and safety of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB) + rilpivirine (RPV) every 8 weeks (Q8W) versus daily oral standard of care (SoC) maintenance in treatment-experienced individuals with virologically suppressed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) has not been directly compared in randomized clinical trials. This analysis aimed to indirectly compare these regimens.Methods: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison of CAB + RPV Q8W with daily oral SoC was performed, using Phase 3 data from studies of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks (Q4W) vs SoC (ATLAS/FLAIR, n = 591 per group) and a Phase 3b trial of CAB + RPV Q8W vs Q4W (ATLAS-2M [excluding participants with prior CAB + RPV exposure]; n = 327 per group). Eligible participants were virologically suppressed (viral load < 50 HIV-1 ribonucleic acid (RNA) copies/mL), treatment-experienced individuals with HIV-1-infection. Treatment efficacy and safety assessments at Week 48 included virologic suppression and lack of virologic suppression (proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL or ≥ 50 copies/mL, respectively; both as per FDA snapshot algorithm), CD4-cell count change from baseline, no virologic data, discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), and overall AEs, serious AEs and Grade 3-5 AEs excluding injection-site reactions. A subgroup analysis stratified by baseline third active drug class was performed.Results: Baseline characteristics between the Q4W arms of ATLAS/FLAIR and ATLAS-2M showed no significant differences or differences were not judged to be clinically relevant, apart from participants switching from a baseline third active drug class; more participants switched from integrase strand inhibitors in ATLAS/FLAIR, and from non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in ATLAS-2M. Injections of CAB + RPV Q8W showed no significant differences across efficacy and safety outcomes versus daily oral SoC. Univariate subgroup analysis found there were no significant differences on virologic suppression or lack of virologic suppression for any baseline third active drug class subgroup. These results suggest that CAB + RPV Q8W is non-inferior to daily oral SoC.Conclusions: This analysis supports the therapeutic potential of CAB + RPV Q8W for virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1 infection seeking an alternative maintenance treatment option to daily oral SoC.Trial Registration: NCT02938520, NCT02951052, NCT03299049. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nivolumab (an anti–programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40–0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma. • Nivolumab is an adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. • This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo. • Placebo was the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy. • Data used in the ITC were from two phase III trials. • Adjuvant nivolumab improved efficacy versus placebo in high-risk resected melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Population‐adjusted indirect comparisons estimate treatment effects when access to individual patient data is limited and there are cross‐trial differences in effect modifiers. Popular methods include matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). There is limited formal evaluation of these methods and whether they can be used to accurately compare treatments. Thus, we undertake a comprehensive simulation study to compare standard unadjusted indirect comparisons, MAIC and STC across 162 scenarios. This simulation study assumes that the trials are investigating survival outcomes and measure continuous covariates, with the log hazard ratio as the measure of effect. MAIC yields unbiased treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. The typical usage of STC produces bias because it targets a conditional treatment effect where the target estimand should be a marginal treatment effect. The incompatibility of estimates in the indirect comparison leads to bias as the measure of effect is non‐collapsible. Standard indirect comparisons are systematically biased, particularly under stronger covariate imbalance and interaction effects. Standard errors and coverage rates are often valid in MAIC but the robust sandwich variance estimator underestimates variability where effective sample sizes are small. Interval estimates for the standard indirect comparison are too narrow and STC suffers from bias‐induced undercoverage. MAIC provides the most accurate estimates and, with lower degrees of covariate overlap, its bias reduction outweighs the loss in precision under no failures of assumptions. An important future objective is the development of an alternative formulation to STC that targets a marginal treatment effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted in 1st line nonsquamous NSCLC. • Pembrolizumab + chemo and atezolizumab + chemo+/-bevacizumab were compared. • OS and PFS were significantly better for pembrolizumab + chemo vs. atezolizumab + chemo. • PFS was significantly better for pembrolizumab + chemo vs. atezo + chemo + bevacizumab. • These results are clinically important given the lack of head-to-head studies. Multiple immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations are approved for the management of advanced NSCLC which have not been directly compared in randomized clinical trials. This study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy+/-bevacizumab for previously untreated non-squamous NSCLC patients without EGFR/ALK aberrations. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted using individual patient data (IPD) from KEYNOTE-021 Cohort G (KN021 G) (pembrolizumab + carboplatin + pemetrexed; N = 59) and KEYNOTE-189 (KN189) (pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum chemotherapy; N = 410) and published aggregate data from IMpower 130 (atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel; N = 451) and IMpower 150 (atezolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel + bevacizumab; N = 356). To adjust for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, data from patients randomized to pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in KN021 G/KN189 were reweighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients randomized to atezolizumab + chemotherapy from IMpower 130 or atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab from IMpower 150. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), blinded independent review-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). OS and PFS follow-up were truncated to the trial with shorter follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were conducted without truncation of follow-up of OS and PFS. After matching for cross-trial differences, the effective sample size of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was 428 and 389 for the IMpower 130 and IMpower 150 comparisons, respectively. The estimated HRs (95 % CIs) of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy were 0.80 (0.67,0.95) and 0.79 (0.67,0.93) with regard to OS and PFS, respectively. For pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab, the estimated HR (95 % CIs) was 0.86 (0.72,1.03) for OS and 0.81 (0.68,0.96) for PFS. For ORR, the estimated risk ratio (95 % CI) and the risk difference (95 % CI) was 0.9 (0.8,1.1) and -3.5 % (-10.0,3.1) for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy, respectively, and 0.8 (0.7,0.9) and -12.2 % (-19.6,-4.8) for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab, respectively. Findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses for both outcomes. MAIC results showed a significantly better OS and PFS for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared with atezolizumab + chemotherapy and a significantly better PFS for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared with atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) provide valuable evidence on comparative efficacy where head-to-head clinical trials do not exist; however, differences in patient populations may introduce bias. Therefore, it is essential to assess between-trial heterogeneity to determine the suitability of synthesizing ITC results. We provide an illustrative case study in multiple sclerosis (MS) where we assess the feasibility of conducting ITCs between siponimod and interferon beta-1b (IFN β-1b) and between siponimod and ocrelizumab.Methods: We assessed the feasibility of conducting ITCs using standard unadjusted methods (e.g. Bucher or network meta-analysis [NMA]) as well as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) using individual patient data (IPD) from the siponimod (EXPAND) trial, based on guidance from NICE. Time to confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 or 6 months was assessed.Results: Bucher ITCs and NMAs, which rely on summary-level data, were not able to account for important cross-trial differences. Comparisons between siponimod and IFN β-1b were feasible using MAIC; the HRs (95% CI) for CDP-6 and CDP-3 were 0.55 (0.33-0.91) and 0.82 (0.42-1.63), respectively. ITCs were not feasible between siponimod and ocrelizumab because study designs and patient populations were too dissimilar to conduct a reliable ITC.Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of conducting a detailed feasibility assessment before undertaking ITCs to illuminate when excessive between-trial heterogeneity would cause biased results. MAIC was performed for siponimod and IFN β-1b in the absence of a head-to-head trial and was considered a more valid approach than a traditional ITC to examine comparative effectiveness. [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.)

Objective: To determine the efficacy of pembrolizumab relative to other treatments used in stage III melanoma by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: A SLR was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating approved adjuvant treatments including interferon-containing regimens, BRAF-inhibitors, and PD-L1 inhibitors in stage III melanoma patients. Relative treatment effects for recurrence-free survival (RFS) were synthesized with Bayesian NMA models that allowed for hazard ratios (HRs) to vary over time. Results: Included studies formed a connected network of evidence composed of eight trials. In high-risk stage III patients, the HR for pembrolizumab vs observation decreased significantly over time with the superiority of pembrolizumab over observation becoming statistically meaningful before 3 months. By 9 months, the HR for pembrolizumab vs observation was statistically significantly lower than the HR for most other treatments vs observation, with the exception of ipilimumab and biochemotherapy due to overlapping 95% credible intervals. In BRAF + patients, pembrolizumab was statistically significantly better than observation after 3 months. The HR for both BRAF-inhibitors vs observation increased significantly over time and pembrolizumab was statistically superior to both BRAF-inhibitors after 15 months. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab results in statistically significantly improved RFS compared to all competing regimens after 9 months, except ipilimumab and biochemotherapy, for the adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma. However, point estimate HRs vs observation for pembrolizumab are much lower than those for ipilimumab. In BRAF + patients, the advantage of pembrolizumab versus competing interventions increases over time with respect to RFS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Post-hoc analysis of 5-year follow-up data from a randomized, multicenter trial.Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of progression in radiographic adjacent-level degeneration (ΔALD) from preoperative assessment to 5 years after total disc replacement (TDR) and the relationship of these changes with range of motion and clinical adjacent-level disease. A secondary objective was to compare adjacent-level degeneration (ALD) outcomes between TDR and fusion.Summary Of Background Data: Fusion is associated with high rates of ALD in symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration. TDR may reduce this risk.Methods: In total, 175 patients with single-level, symptomatic, lumbar disc degeneration who had received activL or ProDisc-L and had a preoperative and 5-year postoperative radiograph available were included. Over 5-year follow-up, ΔALD was defined as an increase in ALD of ≥1 grade and clinical ALD was defined as surgical treatment at the level adjacent to an index TDR. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted to compare ALD outcomes after TDR (current trial) with those after fusion (published trial).Results: At 5-year follow-up, 9.7% (17/175) of TDR patients had ΔALD at the superior level. In patients with preoperative ALD at the superior level, most (88% [23/26]) showed no radiographic progression over 5 years. The rate of clinical ALD was 2.3% (4/175) and none of these patients had ALD at baseline. For each degree of range of motion gained at the TDR level, there was a consistent decrease in the percentage of patients with ΔALD. After matching and adjustment of baseline characteristics, TDR had a significantly lower likelihood of ΔALD than fusion (odds ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.13, 0.76).Conclusion: The rates of ΔALD and clinical ALD in this TDR population were similar to those previously reported in the literature for TDR at 5-year follow-up. TDR had a significantly lower rate of ΔALD than fusion.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) as an add-on therapy for uncontrolled severe asthma is an alternative to biologic therapies like omalizumab (OM). We conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to appraise comparative effectiveness of BT and OM. Methods: A systematic literature review identified relevant randomized controlled trials. The ITC followed accepted methodology. Results: The ITC comprised a sham-controlled trial of BT (AIR2) and two placebo-controlled trials of OM (INNOVATE; EXTRA). Comparing the BT post-treatment period to ongoing treatment with OM, showed no significant differences in the rate ratios (RRs) for severe exacerbations (RR of BT versus OM = 0.91 [95% CI: 0.64, 1.30]; p = 0.62) or hospitalizations (RR = 0.57 [95% CI: 0.17, 1.86]; p = 0.53); emergency department visits were significantly reduced by 75% with BT (RR=0.25 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.91]; p=0.04); the proportions of patients with clinically meaningful response on the asthma quality-of-life questionnaire were comparable (RR = 1.06 [95% CI: 0.86, 1.34]; p = 0.59). The RR for exacerbations statistically favours OM over the total study period in AIR2 (RR = 1.50 [95% CI: 1.11, 2.02]; p = 0.009) likely reflecting a transient increase in events during the BT peri-treatment period. Conclusions: The ITC should be interpreted cautiously considering the differences between patient populations in the included trials. However, based on the analysis, BT compares well with a potentially more costly pharmacotherapy for asthma. Clinicians evaluating the relative merits of using these treatments should consider the totality of evidence and patient preferences to make an informed decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To review and compare methods for indirect comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema.Methods: Post-stratification, inverse probability weighting based on simulated data, weight optimization, and regression model techniques were used to compare pooled individual patient-level data from the RESTORE and RESPOND (ranibizumab 0.5 mg as needed after 3 initial monthly doses) studies with summary-level data from the VIVID and VISTA (aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks after 5 initial monthly doses, 2q8) studies. The impact of adjusting for up to two baseline characteristics was assessed.Results: All methods provided similar results. After adjustment for baseline best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness, no statistically significant difference in average gain in baseline best-corrected visual acuity from baseline at month 12 was found between ranibizumab 0.5 mg and aflibercept 2q8.Conclusions: Weight optimization and regression methods are useful options to adjust for more than one baseline characteristic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pairwise meta-analysis is an established statistical tool for synthesizing evidence from multiple trials, but it is informative only about the relative efficacy of two specific interventions. The usefulness of pairwise meta-analysis is thus limited in real-life medical practice, where many competing interventions may be available for a certain condition and studies informing some of the pairwise comparisons may be lacking. This commonly encountered scenario has led to the development of network meta-analysis (NMA). In the last decade, several applications, methodological developments, and empirical studies in NMA have been published, and the area is thriving as its relevance to public health is increasingly recognized. This article presents a review of the relevant literature on NMA methodology aiming to pinpoint the developments that have appeared in the field. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag compared with romiplostim to be used in the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia in patients in England and Wales who are splenectomized or ineligible for splenectomy and are refractory to other treatments.Methods: A Markov cohort model in which patients were administered a sequence of treatments was used to predict long-term outcomes associated with each treatment. The model was informed by data from the eltrombopag clinical trial program and the available literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, and a lifetime time horizon was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Eltrombopag dominated romiplostim (i.e., eltrombopag was as effective as but less costly than romiplostim) in both splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients, assuming a class effect for the two treatments. Eltrombopag also dominated romiplostim in most deterministic sensitivity analyses with the exception of when indirect efficacy estimates were incorporated into the model. In this analysis, eltrombopag no longer dominated romiplostim but remained cost-effective versus romiplostim at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was a 99% and 92% chance of eltrombopag being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients, respectively.Conclusions: Results of this study demonstrate that eltrombopag is cost-effective when compared with romiplostim to be used in the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia, representing good value for the UK National Health Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of conventional pairwise metaanalysis that allows for simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions. Well-established drug class efficacies have become commonplace in many disease areas. Thus, for reasons of ethics and equipoise, it is not practical to randomize patients to placebo or older drug classes. Unique randomized clinical trial designs are an attempt to navigate these obstacles. These alternative designs, however, pose challenges when attempting to incorporate data into NMAs. Using ulcerative colitis as an example, we illustrate an example of a method where data provided by these trials are used to populate treatment networks. Methods: We present the methods used to convert data from the PURSUIT trial into a typical parallel design for inclusion in our NMA. Data were required for three arms: golimumab 100 mg; golimumab 50 mg; and placebo. Golimumab 100 mg induction data were available; however, data regarding those individuals who were nonresponders at induction and those who were responders at maintenance were not reported, and as such, had to be imputed using data from the rerandomization phase. Golimumab 50 mg data regarding responses at week 6 were not available. Existing relationships between the available components were used to impute the expected proportions in this missing subpopulation. Data for placebo maintenance response were incomplete, as all induction nonresponders were assigned to golimumab 100 mg. Data from the PURSUIT trial were combined with ACT-1 and ULTRA-2 trial data to impute missing information. Discussion: We have demonstrated methods for converting results from alternative study designs to more conventional parallel randomized clinical trials. These conversions allow for indirect treatment comparisons that are informed by a wider array of evidence, adding to the precision of estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Indirect comparison methods have been increasingly used to assess the effectiveness of different interventions comparatively. This study evaluated a Trial Similarity and Evidence Consistency Assessment (TSECA) framework for assessing key assumptions underlying the validity of indirect comparisons. Study Design and Setting: We applied the TSECA framework to 94 Cochrane Systematic Reviews that provided data to compare two interventions by both direct and indirect comparisons. Using the TSECA framework, two reviewers independently assessed and scored trial similarity and evidence consistency. A detailed case study provided further insight into the usefulness and limitations of the framework proposed. Results: Trial similarity and evidence consistency scores obtained using the assessment framework were not associated with statistically significant inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates. The case study illustrated that the assessment framework could be used to identify potentially important differences in participants, interventions, and outcome measures between different sets of trials in the indirect comparison. Conclusion: Although the overall trial similarity and evidence consistency scores are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate for predicting inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates, the assessment framework proposed in this study can be a useful tool for identifying between-trial differences that may threaten the validity of indirect treatment comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]