Search

Population‐adjusted indirect comparison (PAIC) is an increasingly used technique for estimating the comparative effectiveness of different treatments for the health technology assessments when head‐to‐head trials are unavailable. Three commonly used PAIC methods include matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), and multilevel network meta‐regression (ML‐NMR). MAIC enables researchers to achieve balanced covariate distribution across two independent trials when individual participant data are only available in one trial. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the MAIC methods, including their theoretical derivation, implicit assumptions, and connection to calibration estimation in survey sampling. We discuss the nuances between anchored and unanchored MAIC, as well as their required assumptions. Furthermore, we implement various MAIC methods in a user‐friendly R Shiny application Shiny‐MAIC. To our knowledge, it is the first Shiny application that implements various MAIC methods. The Shiny‐MAIC application offers choice between anchored or unanchored MAIC, choice among different types of covariates and outcomes, and two variance estimators including bootstrap and robust standard errors. An example with simulated data is provided to demonstrate the utility of the Shiny‐MAIC application, enabling a user‐friendly approach conducting MAIC for healthcare decision‐making. The Shiny‐MAIC is freely available through the link: https://ziren.shinyapps.io/Shiny_MAIC/. [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]

We examine four important considerations in the development of covariate adjustment methodologies for indirect treatment comparisons. First, we consider potential advantages of weighting versus outcome modeling, placing focus on bias‐robustness. Second, we outline why model‐based extrapolation may be required and useful, in the specific context of indirect treatment comparisons with limited overlap. Third, we describe challenges for covariate adjustment based on data‐adaptive outcome modeling. Finally, we offer further perspectives on the promise of doubly robust covariate adjustment frameworks. [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]

Background: Anchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.Methods: A modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.Results: Despite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.Conclusions: Two-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial. [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: There are no head-to-head clinical studies comparing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for the treatment of relapsed or refractory aggressive large B-cell lymphomas. Naive, indirect comparisons may be inappropriate, as the study designs and patient populations could differ substantially. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) can reduce many biases associated with indirect comparisons between studies. To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) to tisagenlecleucel, we describe an unanchored MAIC of the pivotal studies TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044; liso-cel) and JULIET (NCT02445248; tisagenlecleucel). Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) from TRANSCEND were available to the authors; for the JULIET pivotal study, summary-level data from the published study were used. To balance the populations between two studies, IPD from TRANSCEND were adjusted to match the marginal distribution (e.g., mean, variance) of clinical factors among patients from JULIET. Results: Results from the primary MAIC showed liso-cel had statistically significant greater efficacy than tisagenlecleucel (objective response rate: odds ratio [OR] = 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63‒4.74; complete response rate: OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.22‒3.30; progression-free survival: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.91; overall survival: HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.95). MAIC of safety outcomes showed lower ORs for all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome, and grade ≥ 3 prolonged cytopenia for liso-cel when compared with tisagenlecleucel; there were no statistically significant differences detected for other safety outcomes. Conclusions: Overall, this MAIC of two CAR T-cell therapies indicates liso-cel had favorable efficacy and a comparable or better safety profile relative to tisagenlecleucel. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02631044 and NCT02445248. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a one-time intravenous gene replacement therapy, and nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide that requires ongoing intrathecal administration, have been evaluated as treatments for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type 1 in separate Phase III trials, but no head-to-head comparison studies have been conducted. Onasemnogene abeparvovec was compared with nusinersen using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the treatment effect of onasemnogene abeparvovec relative to nusinersen for the treatment of symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 for up to 24 months of follow-up. In the absence of studies for both onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen with a common comparator, a Bayesian naïve indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and MAIC between onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen were conducted to compare efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen. Outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and motor milestone achievements (independent sitting and independent walking). Relative treatment effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) and risk difference. Pooled and weighted patient-level data illustrated a favorable effect toward onasemnogene abeparvovec, suggesting longer EFS for patients compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.07–0.54; 99% CI: 0.05–0.74]). At 24 months of follow-up, patients receiving onasemnogene abeparvovec were statistically significantly more likely to achieve the motor milestone of sitting independently compared with patients treated with nusinersen. Although statistically significant differences were not observed at 6 to 18 months between treatment options, the likelihood of sitting independently at 12 and 18 months numerically favored onasemnogene abeparvovec. A numerically greater likelihood of walking by 18 and 24 months was also observed for patients treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec compared with nusinersen. Onasemnogene abeparvovec therapy was also associated with a favorable (but statistically nonsignificant) outcome for OS and may be associated with prolonged survival compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.09–1.32; 99% CI: 0.06–2.01]). Bayesian naïve ITC results were similar to the MAIC analysis for EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievements. Small sample size limited covariate matching to baseline CHOP INTEND and nutritional support requirement, leading to wider CIs and statistically inconclusive outcomes for some of the results. Despite limitations of the current MAIC analysis (mainly a small sample size for statistical testing, even for the pooled onasemnogene abeparvovec trials, and potential differences in prognostic and predictive factors between studies), the relative treatment effects in EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievement indicate that onasemnogene abeparvovec may offer continued benefit compared with nusinersen through 24 months of follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the absence of randomized studies directly comparing chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies, this study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods: Primary data sources included individual patient data from the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (TRANSCEND [NCT02631044]; N = 256 for efficacy set, N = 269 for safety set) for liso-cel and summary-level data from the ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216; N = 101 for efficacy set, N = 108 for safety set) for axi-cel. Inter-study differences in design, eligibility criteria, baseline characteristics, and outcomes were assessed and aligned to the extent feasible. Clinically relevant prognostic factors were adjusted in a stepwise fashion by ranked order. Since bridging therapy was allowed in TRANSCEND but not ZUMA-1, the initial efficacy and safety analyses included bridging therapy use as a matching factor (TRANSCEND patients who received bridging therapy were removed). Subsequent sensitivity analyses excluded this matching factor. Results: The initial analysis showed similar MAIC-weighted efficacy outcomes between TRANSCEND and ZUMA-1 for overall and complete response rates (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.40 [0.56–3.49] and 1.21 [0.56–2.64], respectively) and for overall survival and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.81 [0.44–1.49] and 0.95 [0.58–1.57], respectively). MAIC-weighted safety outcomes favored liso-cel, with significantly lower odds of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.03 [0.01–0.07] and 0.08 [0.01–0.67], respectively) and study-specific neurological events (0.16 [0.08–0.33] and 0.05 [0.02–0.15], respectively). Efficacy and safety outcomes remained similar in sensitivity analyses, which did not include use of bridging therapy as a matching factor. Conclusions: After matching and adjusting for clinically relevant prognostic factors, liso-cel demonstrated comparable efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared with axi-cel in patients with third- or later-line relapsed or refractory LBCL. Trial registration: NCT02631044 and NCT02348216 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Siponimod, interferon beta-1a (IFNβ-1a), IFNβ-1b and natalizumab have been evaluated as treatments for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) in separate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but not head-to-head. These trials included heterogeneous patient populations, which limits the use of standard network meta-analysis (NMA) for indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of relative efficacy. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) aims to correct these cross-trial differences. We compared siponimod to other disease modifying treatments (DMTs) in SPMS using MAIC.Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) were available for siponimod (EXPAND), while only published summary data were available for IFNβ-1a (Nordic Study, SPECTRIMS, IMPACT), IFNβ-1b (North American Study, European Study) and natalizumab (ASCEND). MAICs were conducted between siponimod and the other DMTs by re-weighting patients in EXPAND based on logistic regression.Results: Siponimod was determined to be statistically significantly more effective for the outcome of time to 6 month confirmed disability progression (CDP) compared with 22 µg IFNβ-1a and 250 µg IFNβ-1b, and for the outcome of time to CDP-3 compared with 60 µg IFNβ-1a. Siponimod was numerically but not statistically superior for CDP in all other comparisons. For annualized relapse rate (ARR), with the exception of natalizumab, siponimod was numerically but not statistically superior to all comparators.Conclusions: EXPAND provides evidence of the efficacy of siponimod compared with placebo, and these MAICs complement this by demonstrating improved efficacy of siponimod relative to DMTs. Siponimod offers a significant therapeutic advance that may slow disease progression compared to other DMTs in an EXPAND-like population with secondary progressive disease. [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]

Objectives: To estimate the comparative efficacy of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease modifying therapies (DMTs) - fingolimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab and ocrelizumab - in adults with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), using meta-regression to provide subpopulation-specific estimates of drug effect. Additionally, to determine the feasibility of conducting a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to validate the meta-regression results. Methods: A published systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies evaluating the efficacy of cladribine tablets and alternative DMTs in the management of active RRMS. A series of meta-regression models were run with adjustment for baseline risk, fitted to data from the intention-to-treat cohorts of trials identified in the SLR. A non-parametric MAIC analysis adjusted for differences between studies by reweighting patient-level data from the index trial to match the mean baseline characteristics reported for trials with only aggregate data. Results: The meta-regression analysis showed significant overlap in credible intervals for the hazard ratios of 6 month confirmed disability progression (CDP-6M) and annualized relapse rate (ARR), with no therapy statistically dominating in terms of efficacy and all therapies estimated to reduce the ARR compared to placebo in all subpopulations. In the MAIC analysis, cladribine tablets showed a reduction in CDP-6M and ARR comparable to alemtuzumab before and after matching. Conclusion: This analysis has demonstrated that cladribine tablets have comparable relative efficacy to other highly efficacious DMTs in active RRMS across all subpopulations, thus validating the comparative effectiveness results from previous network meta-analysis. The MAIC analysis showed that cladribine tablets are comparable in efficacy to alemtuzumab in the treatment of patients with RRMS. [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]