Search

Introduction: Despite advancements in the treatment of psoriasis (PsO), there are few head-to-head studies assessing comparative effectiveness of the newest therapies approved to treat PsO. Our objective was to assess the comparative clinical effectiveness of risankizumab and deucravacitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe PsO. Methods: This placebo-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analysis utilized data from UltIMMa-1/2 risankizumab and POETYK PSO-1/2 deucravacitinib trials. Individual patient data from UltiMMA-1/2 were weighted via propensity score to match POETYK PSO-1/2 published summary data. Rate differences between risankizumab and deucravacitinib were assessed for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100, the Static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA = 0 or 0/1), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1. Results: At 16 weeks, risankizumab-treated patients demonstrated statistically significantly higher rates of skin clearance and greater improvement in quality of life (QoL) compared to those treated with deucravacitinib. Across all outcomes, risankizumab demonstrated a lower number needed to treat compared to deucravacitinib. Limitations are potential bias due to unobserved/unmeasurable differences and limited generalizability of the results. Conclusions: This indirect comparison demonstrates that risankizumab has higher rates of skin clearance and greater improvements in QoL than deucravacitinib. This study will help inform healthcare providers in their treatment and management strategy of PsO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In health technology assessment, matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is the most common method for pairwise comparisons that control for imbalances in baseline characteristics across trials. One of the primary challenges in MAIC is the need to properly account for the additional uncertainty introduced by the matching process. Limited evidence and guidance are available on variance estimation in MAICs. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive Monte Carlo simulation study to evaluate the performance of different statistical methods across 108 scenarios. Four general approaches for variance estimation were compared in both anchored and unanchored MAICs of binary and time‐to‐event outcomes: (1) conventional estimators (CE) using raw weights; (2) CE using weights rescaled to the effective sample size (ESS); (3) robust sandwich estimators; and (4) bootstrapping. Several variants of sandwich estimators and bootstrap methods were tested. Performance was quantified on the basis of empirical coverage probabilities for 95% confidence intervals and variability ratios. Variability was underestimated by CE + raw weights when population overlap was poor or moderate. Despite several theoretical limitations, CE + ESS weights accurately estimated uncertainty across most scenarios. Original implementations of sandwich estimators had a downward bias in MAICs with a small ESS, and finite sample adjustments led to marked improvements. Bootstrapping was unstable if population overlap was poor and the sample size was limited. All methods produced valid coverage probabilities and standard errors in cases of strong population overlap. Our findings indicate that the sample size, population overlap, and outcome type are important considerations for variance estimation in MAICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Despite advancements in the treatment of psoriasis (PsO), there are few head-to-head studies assessing comparative effectiveness of the newest therapies approved to treat PsO. Our objective was to assess the comparative clinical effectiveness of risankizumab and deucravacitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe PsO. Methods This placebo-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analysis utilized data from UltIMMa-1/2 risankizumab and POETYK PSO-1/2 deucravacitinib trials. Individual patient data from UltiMMA-1/2 were weighted via propensity score to match POETYK PSO-1/2 published summary data. Rate differences between risankizumab and deucravacitinib were assessed for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100, the Static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA = 0 or 0/1), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1. Results At 16 weeks, risankizumab-treated patients demonstrated statistically significantly higher rates of skin clearance and greater improvement in quality of life (QoL) compared to those treated with deucravacitinib. Across all outcomes, risankizumab demonstrated a lower number needed to treat compared to deucravacitinib. Limitations are potential bias due to unobserved/unmeasurable differences and limited generalizability of the results. Conclusions This indirect comparison demonstrates that risankizumab has higher rates of skin clearance and greater improvements in QoL than deucravacitinib. This study will help inform healthcare providers in their treatment and management strategy of PsO.

Introduction: With an increasing number of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug options available for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis (AS), also known as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, it is of clinical interest to determine the comparative efficacy of these advanced therapies among populations with differing prior advanced therapy exposure. This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of approved advanced therapies for AS in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve and, separately, in TNFi inadequate responder/intolerant (-IR) populations. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials for TNFis, interleukin-17A inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors used as advanced therapies for active AS. Clinical efficacy was considered by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score low disease activity (ASDAS LDA) criteria, defined as ASDAS score less than 2.1, among approved therapies. Comparative efficacy in the TNFi-naïve population was assessed utilizing network meta-analysis, while comparative efficacy in the TNFi-IR population was assessed utilizing matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Odds ratios were calculated, from which absolute rates and numbers needed to treat were calculated. Safety in the form of trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was reviewed. Results: Among the TNFi-naïve population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate between week 12 and 16 was highest for patients treated with upadacitinib (52.8%) and lowest for patients treated with placebo (11.6%). Among the TNFi-IR population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate was 41.3% for patients treated with upadacitinib and 17.5% for patients treated with ixekizumab. The trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to AEs were generally low across included advanced therapies. Conclusions: Relative to other assessed therapies, upadacitinib demonstrated greater clinical efficacy per ASDAS LDA in the treatment of active AS in both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR populations. Head-to-head and real-world data comparisons are warranted to both validate these findings and aid medical decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A previous network meta-analysis established 16-week relative efficacy with bimekizumab, an inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, versus other treatments for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), including the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab and ixekizumab. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) assessed 52-week relative efficacy of bimekizumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab. Methods: Individual patient data from BE MOBILE 2 (bimekizumab 160 mg; N = 220) were matched to pooled summary data from MEASURE 1/2/3/4 (secukinumab 150 mg), MEASURE 3 (secukinumab 300 mg; escalated dose for inadequate responders), COAST-V (ixekizumab) and COAST-V/-W (ixekizumab). BE MOBILE 2 patients were reweighted using propensity score weights based on age, sex, ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, weight, baseline ASDAS and BASFI (secukinumab) and baseline BASDAI (ixekizumab), and 52-week efficacy outcomes from the trial recalculated. Odds ratios (OR) or mean difference for unanchored comparisons are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: At week 52, MAIC demonstrated that patients may have higher likelihood of improvement in key efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus secukinumab 150 mg (e.g., ASAS40: [OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.05, 2.10); p = 0.026]; effective sample size [ESS] = 177). Differences in 52-week efficacy outcomes between bimekizumab and secukinumab 300 mg dose escalation were non-significant (ESS = 120). Bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg comparisons (COAST-V only; ESS = 84) also suggested that differences were non-significant for most key efficacy outcomes. Other ixekizumab comparisons (COAST-V/-W; ESS = 45) suggested bimekizumab may have higher comparative efficacy for many of the same efficacy outcomes, however ixekizumab analyses were limited by poor population overlap, likely due to the greater proportion of patients with previous TNFi exposure. Conclusions: Patients treated with bimekizumab may have a higher likelihood of achieving improved longer-term efficacy versus secukinumab 150 mg, suggesting bimekizumab may be a favorable therapeutic option for r-axSpA. Differences in efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg were mostly non-significant, depending on the populations considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Aim: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN) are disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus OZA and IFN. We compared DRF versus OZA and DRF versus IFN using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes, including annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12- and 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) and absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Patients & methods:We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III study of DRF (n = 1057) and aggregate data from RADIANCE (NCT02047734), a 2-year, double-blind, phase III study that compared OZA 1 mg once daily (n = 433) and intramuscular IFN 30 μg once weekly (n = 441). To account for cross-trial differences, the EVOLVE-MS-1 population was restricted to those who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RADIANCE, then weighted to match the average baseline characteristics of RADIANCE. Results: After weighting, DRF and OZA had similar ARRs (0.18 and 0.17, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs OZA) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 0.06). DRF had a lower ARR than IFN (0.18 and 0.28, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs IFN) of -0.10 (95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04) after weighting. Outcomes for 12- and 24-week CDP favored DRF versus OZA; 12-week CDP favored DRF versus IFN, but there was not strong evidence favoring DRF over IFN for 24-week CDP. Compared with OZA and IFN, DRF had higher proportions of patients without Gd+ T1 lesions and patients without new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Conclusion: Disability progression and radiological outcomes were favorable for DRF versusOZA, although no differences were observed in ARR. Clinical and radiological outcomes generally favored DRF versus IFN. These findings may be informative for patients and clinicians considering different treatment options for MS.

Abstract Introduction A previous network meta-analysis established 16-week relative efficacy with bimekizumab, an inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, versus other treatments for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), including the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab and ixekizumab. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) assessed 52-week relative efficacy of bimekizumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab. Methods Individual patient data from BE MOBILE 2 (bimekizumab 160 mg; N = 220) were matched to pooled summary data from MEASURE 1/2/3/4 (secukinumab 150 mg), MEASURE 3 (secukinumab 300 mg; escalated dose for inadequate responders), COAST-V (ixekizumab) and COAST-V/-W (ixekizumab). BE MOBILE 2 patients were reweighted using propensity score weights based on age, sex, ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, weight, baseline ASDAS and BASFI (secukinumab) and baseline BASDAI (ixekizumab), and 52-week efficacy outcomes from the trial recalculated. Odds ratios (OR) or mean difference for unanchored comparisons are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results At week 52, MAIC demonstrated that patients may have higher likelihood of improvement in key efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus secukinumab 150 mg (e.g., ASAS40: [OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.05, 2.10); p = 0.026]; effective sample size [ESS] = 177). Differences in 52-week efficacy outcomes between bimekizumab and secukinumab 300 mg dose escalation were non-significant (ESS = 120). Bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg comparisons (COAST-V only; ESS = 84) also suggested that differences were non-significant for most key efficacy outcomes. Other ixekizumab comparisons (COAST-V/-W; ESS = 45) suggested bimekizumab may have higher comparative efficacy for many of the same efficacy outcomes, however ixekizumab analyses were limited by poor population overlap, likely due to the greater proportion of patients with previous TNFi exposure. Conclusions Patients treated with bimekizumab may have a higher likelihood of achieving improved longer-term efficacy versus secukinumab 150 mg, suggesting bimekizumab may be a favorable therapeutic option for r-axSpA. Differences in efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg were mostly non-significant, depending on the populations considered.

Abstract Introduction With an increasing number of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug options available for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis (AS), also known as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, it is of clinical interest to determine the comparative efficacy of these advanced therapies among populations with differing prior advanced therapy exposure. This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of approved advanced therapies for AS in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve and, separately, in TNFi inadequate responder/intolerant (-IR) populations. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials for TNFis, interleukin-17A inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors used as advanced therapies for active AS. Clinical efficacy was considered by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score low disease activity (ASDAS LDA) criteria, defined as ASDAS score less than 2.1, among approved therapies. Comparative efficacy in the TNFi-naïve population was assessed utilizing network meta-analysis, while comparative efficacy in the TNFi-IR population was assessed utilizing matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Odds ratios were calculated, from which absolute rates and numbers needed to treat were calculated. Safety in the form of trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was reviewed. Results Among the TNFi-naïve population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate between week 12 and 16 was highest for patients treated with upadacitinib (52.8%) and lowest for patients treated with placebo (11.6%). Among the TNFi-IR population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate was 41.3% for patients treated with upadacitinib and 17.5% for patients treated with ixekizumab. The trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to AEs were generally low across included advanced therapies. Conclusions Relative to other assessed therapies, upadacitinib demonstrated greater clinical efficacy per ASDAS LDA in the treatment of active AS in both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR populations. Head-to-head and real-world data comparisons are warranted to both validate these findings and aid medical decision makers.

Objective: to compare the clinical efficacy of seniprutug (BCD-180) and adalimumab (ADA) in the treatment of adults with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA).Materials and methods. Based on the results of a previously conducted systematic review, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed, adjusting for confounding factors. The analysis was based on the results of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of seniprutug (BCD-180-2/ELEFTA, NCT05445076) and ADA (ATLAS, NCT00085644) that met the selection criteria. We chose ASAS40 and ASAS20 measurements at week 24 as efficacy outcomes. Initial BASDAI and BASFI indices, proportion of women in the study population, time from disease onset, and baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were considered as confounders.Results and discussion. The MAIC showed a statistically significant advantage in the clinical efficacy of seniprutug (BCD-180) over ADA. When adjusted, the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for seniprutug (BCD-180)/ADA were 1.86 (1.15; 3.02) and 2.21 (1.34; 3.72) for ASAS40 and ASAS20, respectively, at week 24.Conclusion. The MAIC demonstrated statistically significant superiority of seniprutug (BCD-180) over ADA on the key efficacy endpoints ASAS40 and ASAS20 at week 24 in adults with active r-axSpA. The inclusion of the innovative domestic drug seniprutug into treatment paradigm of active r-axSpA will potentially reduce the socio-economic burden of this disease by providing an affordable, effective and safe therapy while optimizing healthcare costs

Abstract Introduction Tralokinumab and dupilumab are biological agents licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adult patients who are candidates for systemic treatment. However, no head-to-head studies of their efficacy have been conducted. This study indirectly compared the efficacy of tralokinumab and dupilumab, both in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), at week 32. Methods An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient data (IPD) from the ECZTRA 3 tralokinumab trial and aggregate data from the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS dupilumab trial. IPD were selected by applying inclusion criteria from LIBERTY AD CHRONOS and weighting to match summary baseline characteristics—age, sex, race, body mass index, disease duration, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index—of patients treated with dupilumab. Week 32 outcomes of interest were 50%, 75% or 90% improvements in EASI (EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90), IGA scores of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1), ≥ 4-point improvement in worst daily pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) score, and mean improvements in DLQI and the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Results After matching, tralokinumab and dupilumab, both in combination with TCS, showed similar efficacy across clinical response endpoints at week 32 (IGA 0/1, tralokinumab 49.9% vs dupilumab 39.3%; EASI-50, 78.9% vs 77.5%; EASI-75, 71.5% vs 71.9%; EASI-90, 53.3% vs 56.2%). The mean change from baseline in DLQI was statistically significantly larger in the matched tralokinumab plus TCS population than in the dupilumab plus TCS arm (− 12.1 vs − 10.4, p = 0.005). Changes in POEM and worst daily pruritus NRS were similar in the two groups. Conclusion The results of this analysis demonstrate that, in combination with TCS, tralokinumab and dupilumab have similar efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD at 32 weeks of therapy.

Aim: Cost–effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed to compare axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and lisocabtagene (liso-cel) for treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adult patients after ≥2 lines of therapy in Japan. Materials & methods: Cost–effectiveness analysis was conducted using the partition survival mixture cure model based on the ZUMA-1 trial and adjusted to the JULIET and TRANSCEND trials using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. Results & conclusion: Axi-cel was associated with greater incremental life years (3.13 and 2.85) and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (2.65 and 2.24), thus generated lower incremental direct medical costs (-$976.29 [-¥137,657] and -$242.00 [-¥34,122]), compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel. Axi-cel was cost-effective option compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel from a Japanese payer's perspective. This is the first study comparing cost–effectiveness among different CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies in Japan. Axi-cel was associated with additional life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and decreased costs compared with either tisa-cel or liso-cel, demonstrating that it is a cost-effective treatment option among currently available chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies in Japan which may improve life expectancy. In the base case, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was found to be highly cost-effective versus tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and lisocabtagene (liso-cel). Axi-cel was associated with more LYs (3.13 and 2.85) and QALYs (2.65 and 2.24), and lower direct medical costs (-$976.29 [-¥137,657] and -$242.00 [-¥34,122]), compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel, respectively. The gain in discounted LYs and QALYs was predominantly attributable to pre-progression survival status for axi-cel. Compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel, patients treated with axi-cel experienced a longer progression-free state and improved QALYs (discounted LYs: 3.36 and 2.66; QALYs 2.75 and 2.17, respectively). The analyses showed that patients who received axi-cel incurred lower total discounted costs by -$976.29 (-¥137,657) and -$242.00 (-¥34,122) versus tisa-cel and liso-cel ($280,875.73 vs $281,852.02 and $280,673.52 vs $280,915.52), respectively. These reductions in total discounted costs for axi-cel were driven by apheresis costs and end-of-life care costs versus tisa-cel, and by end-of-life care costs versus liso-cel, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). In the absence of head-to-head randomized data, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of ozanimod versus other oral DMTs in RRMS. Objectives: To synthesize results from the published MAICs of ozanimod and other oral DMTs for 2-year outcomes in RRMS. Methods: Published MAICs involving ozanimod for the treatment of RRMS were identified. Extracted data elements included efficacy [annualized relapse rate (ARR), confirmed disability progression (CDP), and brain volume loss] and safety [adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, and infection] outcomes. Results: The four MAIC studies identified compared ozanimod with fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and ponesimod. All comparisons were adjusted for differences in age, sex, relapses within the previous year, Expanded Disability Status Scale score, and percentage of patients with prior DMTs. Outcomes at 2 years were analyzed based on comparisons that lacked a common comparator arm. Ozanimod was associated with significantly lower ARR versus teriflunomide [ARR ratio (95% CI) 0.73 (0.62, 0.84) and DMF 0.80 (0.67, 0.97)], with no significant difference versus fingolimod or ponesimod. The proportions of patients treated with ozanimod or fingolimod had similar 3- and 6-month CDP. Compared with teriflunomide and DMF, ozanimod was associated with a significantly lower risk of 3-month CDP; 6-month CDP was comparable. Ozanimod was associated with significantly lower rates of any AE and AEs leading to discontinuation compared with the other oral DMTs evaluated. Ozanimod also had significantly lower rates of SAEs versus teriflunomide and DMF and lower rates of reported infection outcomes versus fingolimod and ponesimod. Conclusion: Compared with the other oral DMTs evaluated in MAICs, ozanimod was associated with a favorable safety profile and improved or comparable efficacy outcomes. Plain language summary: An indirect comparison of ozanimod vs other oral treatments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis The many treatment options available for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) make treatment decisions difficult. While direct head-to-head treatment comparisons provide useful information, these studies are not available for every pair of treatments. Indirect comparisons of published study results can help fill that evidence gap. A technique called matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) offers a statistically robust way to compare safety/efficacy outcomes from different studies by accounting for important differences across the studies. We collected data from four MAIC studies that compared 2-year treatment outcomes in patients treated with ozanimod versus those treated with fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate (DMF), or ponesimod. Each study accounted for differences in age, sex, relapses within the previous year, disability status, and previous therapy use. We found ozanimod was either better than or similar to other treatments based on the outcomes measured. The annual rate of RRMS relapse was lower for patients treated with ozanimod than for patients treated with teriflunomide or DMF and similar for patients treated with ponesimod or fingolimod. Ozanimod-treated patients saw their RRMS progress at rates similar to those treated with fingolimod at 3 and 6 months and teriflunomide and DMF at 6 months; RRMS was more likely to progress at 3 months in patients treated with teriflunomide and DMF versus those treated with ozanimod. Our analyses also found that patients treated with ozanimod had lower rates of side effects, including those serious enough to cause treatment discontinuation, compared with patients receiving other treatments. By comparing findings from existing MAIC studies, we found that patients with RRMS treated with ozanimod had fewer side effects and better or similar efficacy outcomes compared with patients who received other treatments for RRMS. These findings can potentially inform treatment decisions for patients with RRMS. [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]

For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/RMM), where effective treatments options are limited, B-cell maturation antigen and CD3-directed bispecific antibodies offer a promising new approach. Teclistamab gained conditional approval in Europe and accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval based on the MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT03145181). Elranatamab, approved by the FDA demonstrated its safety and efficacy in the MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). Given the absence of head-to-head trials, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess their relative efficacy. Key baseline characteristics were adjusted to be comparable between the two trials. In the MAIC, elranatamab demonstrated significantly better objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) than teclistamab, and numerically better complete response, duration of response, and overall survival (OS). These results suggest that elranatamab is an efficacious option for treating patients with TCE/R MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) often require multiple lines of treatment and have a poor prognosis, particularly after failing covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (cBTKi) therapy. Newer treatments such as brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel, chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy) and pirtobrutinib (non-covalent BTKi) show promise in improving outcomes. Methods: Without direct comparative evidence, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to estimate the relative treatment effects of brexu-cel and pirtobrutinib for post-cBTKi R/R MCL. Using logistic propensity score models, individual patient-level data from ZUMA-2 brexu-cel-infused population (N = 68) were weighted to match pre-specified clinically relevant prognostic factors based on study-level data from the BRUIN cBTKi pre-treated cohort (N = 90). The base-case model incorporated the five most pertinent factors reported in ≥ 50% of both trial populations: morphology, MCL International Prognostic Index, number of prior lines of therapy, disease stage, and prior autologous stem cell transplant. A sensitivity analysis additionally incorporated TP53 mutation and Ki-67 proliferation. Relative treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In the base-case model, brexu-cel was associated with higher rates of objective response (OR 10.39 [95% CI 2.81–38.46]) and complete response (OR 10.11 [95% CI 4.26–24.00]), and improved progression-free survival (HR 0.44 [95% CI 0.25–0.75]), compared to pirtobrutinib. Overall survival and duration of response favored brexu-cel over pirtobrutinib but the differences crossed the bounds for statistical significance. Findings were consistent across the adjusted and unadjusted analyses. Conclusions: Findings suggest that brexu-cel may offer clinically and statistically significant benefits regarding objective response, complete response, and progression-free survival compared to pirtobrutinib among patients with R/R MCL after prior cBTKi therapy. Given the short follow-up and high degree of censoring in BRUIN, an analysis incorporating updated BRUIN data may provide more definitive overall survival results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Tralokinumab and dupilumab are biological agents licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adult patients who are candidates for systemic treatment. However, no head-to-head studies of their efficacy have been conducted. This study indirectly compared the efficacy of tralokinumab and dupilumab, both in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), at week 32. Methods: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient data (IPD) from the ECZTRA 3 tralokinumab trial and aggregate data from the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS dupilumab trial. IPD were selected by applying inclusion criteria from LIBERTY AD CHRONOS and weighting to match summary baseline characteristics—age, sex, race, body mass index, disease duration, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index—of patients treated with dupilumab. Week 32 outcomes of interest were 50%, 75% or 90% improvements in EASI (EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90), IGA scores of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1), ≥ 4-point improvement in worst daily pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) score, and mean improvements in DLQI and the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Results: After matching, tralokinumab and dupilumab, both in combination with TCS, showed similar efficacy across clinical response endpoints at week 32 (IGA 0/1, tralokinumab 49.9% vs dupilumab 39.3%; EASI-50, 78.9% vs 77.5%; EASI-75, 71.5% vs 71.9%; EASI-90, 53.3% vs 56.2%). The mean change from baseline in DLQI was statistically significantly larger in the matched tralokinumab plus TCS population than in the dupilumab plus TCS arm (− 12.1 vs − 10.4, p = 0.005). Changes in POEM and worst daily pruritus NRS were similar in the two groups. Conclusion: The results of this analysis demonstrate that, in combination with TCS, tralokinumab and dupilumab have similar efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD at 32 weeks of therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Edaravone dexborneol and dl-3-n-butylphthalide are two innovative brain cytoprotective drugs from China that have been approved and widely prescribed for acute ischemic stroke, and the cost of the two drugs are partially paid by the Chinese medical insurance system. This study aimed to investigate and compare the cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol versus dl-3-n-butylphthalide for acute ischemic stroke from the Chinese healthcare system’s perspective. Methods A model combining a short-term decision tree model with 90 days and a long-term Markov model with a life-time horizon (40 years) was developed to simulate the cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol versus dl-3-n-butylphthalide for acute ischemic stroke over a lifetime horizon. Since the absence of a head-to-head clinical comparison of two therapies, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by adjusting the patient characteristics using individual patient data from pivotal phase III trial of edaravone dexborneol and published aggregated data of dl-3-n-butylphthalide. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Utilities and costs (Chinese Yuan, CNY) were derived from publications and open-access database. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results. Results Compared with patients in dl-3-n-butylphthalide arm, edaravone dexborneol arm was found to be cost-effective in 90 days and highly cost-effective as the study horizons extended. With a similar direct medical cost, patients in edaravone dexborneol arm slightly gained an additional 0.1615 QALYs in life-time. In the long term (40 years), patients in edaravone dexborneol arm and dl-3-n-butylphthalide arm yielded 8.0351 and 7.8736 QALYs with the overall direct medical cost of CNY 29,185.23 and CNY 29,940.28, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the price of edaravone dexborneol and dl-3-n-butylphthalide. Conclusion Edaravone dexborneol is a cost-effective alternative compared with dl-3-n-butylphthalide for acute ischemic stroke patients in current medical setting of China.

Aim: We assessed relative efficacy and safety of amivantamab versus mobocertinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR exon 20 insertion (exon20ins) mutations who progressed on prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Materials & methods: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison used patient-level data from CHRYSALIS (NCT02609776) and aggregate data from a mobocertinib trial (NCT02716116) to match populations on all clinically relevant confounders. Results: While both agents had similar efficacy for time-to-event outcomes, objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab. 15 of 23 any-grade treatment-related adverse events reported for mobocertinib were significantly less common for amivantamab versus only two for mobocertinib. Conclusion: Results suggest that amivantamab has an improved response rate with similar survival and a more favorable safety profile versus mobocertinib in EGFR exon20ins non-small-cell lung cancer. Amivantamab provides improved response rates, comparable survival, and fewer adverse events compared with mobocertinib in patients with NSCLC that have EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations based on a matching adjusted indirect comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulatory approvals of tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) have established the feasibility of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL). This study used individual patient data from ELARA (tisa-cel) and aggregate published patient data from ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) to compare efficacy and safety outcomes in r/r FL using matching-adjusted indirect comparison methods. After adjustment for baseline differences in the trial populations, the results suggested that tisa-cel (n = 52), compared with axi-cel (n = 86), had similar effects on overall response rate (91.2% vs. 94.2%; p =.58), complete response rate (74.0% vs. 79.1%; p =.60), progression-free survival (HR [95% CI]: 0.8 [0.4, 1.9]; p =.67), and overall survival (HR [95% CI]: 0.5 [0.2, 1.5]; p =.21). Tisa-cel (n = 53) was associated with better safety outcomes than axi-cel (n = 124), reflected by lower rates of any grade and grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/R MM), prognosis is poor and effective treatment options are limited. Elranatamab is a novel B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)- and CD3-directed bispecific antibody which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in August 2023 and demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with TCE/R MM in the phase 2, single-arm MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). To compare the effectiveness of elranatamab vs physician's choice of treatment (PCT) in the absence of head-to-head comparative data, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted. Individual patient data from MagnetisMM-3 (Cohort A [BCMA-naïve] N = 123, 14.7 months of follow-up) were reweighted to match published summary data from two real-world studies of PCT in patients with TCE/R MM (LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH) using a propensity score-type logistic regression. Unanchored MAIC analyses were conducted according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU) 18 guidance. Compared with PCT in LocoMMotion, elranatamab was associated with a significantly higher objective response rate (ORR rate difference: 37.52; 95% CI 26.20–48.83; odds ratio: 4.85; 95% CI 2.85–8.23) and complete or stringent complete response rate (≥CR rate difference: 42.29; 95% CI 31.84–52.74; odds ratio: 184.01; 95% CI 24.66–1372.86), longer progression-free survival (PFS HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.20–0.49), and overall survival (OS HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40–0.94). Compared with PCT in MAMMOTH, elranatamab was associated with significantly higher ORR (rate difference: 28.14; 95% CI 16.77–39.52; odds ratio: 3.24; 95% CI 1.98–5.32) and ≥ CR (rate difference: 26.22; 95% CI 16.40–36.05; odds ratio: 5.48; 95% CI 2.88–10.44), as well as longer PFS (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.17–0.37) and OS (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.33–0.71). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base case. In the MAIC, elranatamab was consistently associated with improved rates and depth of response and significantly longer PFS and OS versus PCT in LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Lebrikizumab and dupilumab are monoclonal antibodies approved for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Both have demonstrated efficacy and safety over the 16-week SOLOs and ADvocate trials. However, AD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disease, and the long-term maintenance of efficacy is critical for achieving disease control from the perspective of patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. This study aims to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and dupilumab every week or every 2 weeks (QW/Q2W) among adult patients who have achieved treatment efficacy following the induction period of 16 weeks. Methods: Lebrikizumab's efficacy was assessed using individual patient data (IPD) from the ADvocate 1 and 2 monotherapy trials. Dupilumab's efficacy was evaluated using aggregate data from the adult-exclusive SOLO-CONTINUE trial. Due to the absence of a common comparator trial arm, we employed an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), a robust methodology widely accepted by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. This re-weights ADvocate IPD to align with SOLO-CONTINUE's prognostic factors and effect modifiers. We compared lebrikizumab's adjusted outcomes with dupilumab outcomes at week 52, focusing on 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline (EASI-75), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, and overall adverse event (AE) rates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test various combinations of matching variables. Results: Adults on lebrikizumab Q4W were more likely to maintain IGA 0/1 through the 36-week maintenance period (weeks 16–52) compared with those on dupilumab QW/Q2W [risk ratio (RR) 1.334; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.74; p = 0.035]. Both treatments demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of EASI-75 maintenance (RR 0.937; 95% CI 0.78–1.13; p = 0.490) and similar AE rates (RR 1.052; 95% CI 0.90–1.23; p = 0.526). Sensitivity analyses substantiated these findings. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that lebrikizumab Q4W may provide equal or superior long-term maintenance of efficacy measured with EASI-75 and IGA 0/1 compared with dupilumab QW/Q2W, with the advantage of requiring less frequent doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Lebrikizumab and dupilumab are monoclonal antibodies approved for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Both have demonstrated efficacy and safety over the 16-week SOLOs and ADvocate trials. However, AD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disease, and the long-term maintenance of efficacy is critical for achieving disease control from the perspective of patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. This study aims to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and dupilumab every week or every 2 weeks (QW/Q2W) among adult patients who have achieved treatment efficacy following the induction period of 16 weeks. Methods Lebrikizumab’s efficacy was assessed using individual patient data (IPD) from the ADvocate 1 and 2 monotherapy trials. Dupilumab’s efficacy was evaluated using aggregate data from the adult-exclusive SOLO-CONTINUE trial. Due to the absence of a common comparator trial arm, we employed an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), a robust methodology widely accepted by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. This re-weights ADvocate IPD to align with SOLO-CONTINUE’s prognostic factors and effect modifiers. We compared lebrikizumab’s adjusted outcomes with dupilumab outcomes at week 52, focusing on 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline (EASI-75), Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, and overall adverse event (AE) rates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test various combinations of matching variables. Results Adults on lebrikizumab Q4W were more likely to maintain IGA 0/1 through the 36-week maintenance period (weeks 16–52) compared with those on dupilumab QW/Q2W [risk ratio (RR) 1.334; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.74; p = 0.035]. Both treatments demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of EASI-75 maintenance (RR 0.937; 95% CI 0.78–1.13; p = 0.490) and similar AE rates (RR 1.052; 95% CI 0.90–1.23; p = 0.526). Sensitivity analyses substantiated these findings. Conclusions Our findings suggest that lebrikizumab Q4W may provide equal or superior long-term maintenance of efficacy measured with EASI-75 and IGA 0/1 compared with dupilumab QW/Q2W, with the advantage of requiring less frequent doses.

Abstract Background Risperidone ISM® is a newly developed long-acting injectable (LAI) treatment for schizophrenia in adults. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons with other similar antipsychotics, the objective of this study was to generate indirect evidence of some aspects of the safety and tolerability of Risperidone ISM compared to other LAI antipsychotics for treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the maintenance treatment setting. Methods A literature review was conducted systematically to identify maintenance treatment studies reporting safety and tolerability outcomes for LAI antipsychotic therapies. Following an assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to account for between-trial imbalances in patient characteristics and to generate comparative evidence for safety and tolerability endpoints. Results The analysis showed that incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was found to be numerically, but not statistically significantly, lower in patients receiving Risperidone ISM than in those receiving Paliperidone palmitate (PP) (OR [95% CI] 0.63 [0.29, 1.38], p = 0.253) and statistically significantly lower than with Aripiprazole monohydrate once-monthly (AOM) (OR [95% CI] 0.25 [0.12, 0.53], p

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function – restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Abstract is missing (Short communication)

We present an empirical comparison of relative-efficacy estimate(s) from matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) with estimates from corresponding standard anchored indirect treatment comparisons. A total of 80 comparisons were identified from 17 publications through a systematic rapid review. A standardized metric that used reported relative treatment efficacy estimates and their associated uncertainty was used to compare the methods across different treatment indications and outcome measures. On aggregate, MAICs presented for connected networks tended to report a more favorable relative-efficacy estimate for the treatment for which individual-level patient data were available relative to the reported indirect treatment comparison estimate. Although we recognize the importance of MAIC and other population adjustment methods in certain situations, we recommend that results from these analyses are interpreted with caution. Researchers and analysts should carefully consider if MAICs are appropriate where presented and whether MAICs would have added value where omitted. • Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) is a method that is increasing in popularity in evidence synthesis. A number of simulation studies have been carried out to assess its suitability as a method. However, simulation studies alone cannot assess bias for MAIC given the subjective nature of how or if at all MAIC is performed. • We analyze real-world MAICs to ascertain if they tend to favor the treatment for which individual patient data are available relative to the results of the standard anchored indirect treatment comparisons. • This work provides an insight into how effect estimates compare when MAIC results are reported or not reported. This can be useful for analysts to consider when appraising results arising from MAIC, or when evaluating the absence of a reported MAIC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. While two approved fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) triple therapies reduce all-cause mortality (ACM) versus dual LAMA/LABA therapy in patients with COPD, head-to-head studies have not compared the effects of these therapies on ACM. We compared ACM in adults with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) in ETHOS versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in IMPACT using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). A systematic literature review identified two studies (ETHOS [NCT02465567]; IMPACT [NCT02164513]) of ≥52 weeks reporting ACM as an efficacy endpoint in patients receiving triple therapy. As ETHOS and IMPACT lack a common comparator, an unanchored MAIC compared ACM between licensed doses of BGF (320/18/9.6 μg) from ETHOS and FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 μg) from IMPACT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Using on- and off-treatment data from the final retrieved datasets of the intention-to-treat populations, BGF data were adjusted according to aggregate FF/UMEC/VI data using 11 baseline covariates; a supplementary unadjusted indirect treatment comparison was also conducted. P-values for these post-hoc analyses are not adjusted for Type I error. ACM over 52 weeks was statistically significantly reduced by 39% for BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in the MAIC (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.38, 0.95], p = 0.030) and unadjusted analysis (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.41, 0.92], p = 0.019). In this MAIC, which adjusted for population heterogeneity between ETHOS and IMPACT, ACM was significantly reduced with BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (known as COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide, being responsible for over 3 million deaths in 2019. People living with COPD are more likely to die. Importantly, a sudden worsening of COPD symptoms (known as an exacerbation) is associated with a higher chance of death from heart-related and breathing-related problems. Therefore, reducing risk of death is an important treatment goal for COPD. Of the three medications approved for treating COPD that combine three drugs in a single-inhaler device, there are two—referred to generically as budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)—that can reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD compared with treatments that combine two drugs. However, no studies have directly compared the risk of death in people living with COPD treated with these medicines. We compared the risk of death in people living with moderate-to-very severe COPD who received either BGF during a clinical trial called ETHOS or FF/UMEC/VI during a clinical trial called IMPACT. To make this comparison, we used a method called "matching-adjusted indirect comparison", which used specific features (such as sex, breathing difficulty, and whether they were current smokers) to match patients from the two studies to ensure similar groups were examined. Our analysis showed a 39% decrease in the chance of death in patients who received BGF compared with patients who received FF/UMEC/VI. This finding may be important for doctors to improve patient health and reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Backgound Lenalidomide‐based regimens are commonly used for early relapse in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) receiving at least one prior line of therapy. In the absence of head‐to‐head comparison, matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to demonstrate efficacy and safety of isatuximab+carfilzomib+dexamethasone (Isa‐Kd) versus daratumumab + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Dara‐Rd) in RRMM. Methods Patient‐level data from IKEMA trial (Isa‐Kd, n = 179) were matched to aggregate data from POLLUX (Dara‐Rd, n = 286). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were generated by weighted Cox proportional hazard models. Odds ratios (OR), 95% CI, and p‐value were calculated for ≥very good partial response (≥VGPR) and treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results After matching, no significant differences were observed between Isa‐Kd and Dara‐Rd in baseline characteristics except for patients with >3 prior lines (0.0% vs. 4.9%). Isa‐Kd showed significantly better PFS (HR [95% CI]: 0.46 [0.24–0.86]; p = 0.0155), statistically non‐significant improvement favoring Isa‐Kd in OS (0.47 [0.20–1.09]; 0.0798), and ≥VGPR (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.89–2.64]; p = 0.1252) than Dara‐Rd. Odds of occurrence were significantly lower for some all‐grade and grade 3/4 TEAEs with Isa‐Kd than Dara‐Rd. Conclusion These results support Isa‐Kd as an efficacious treatment for early relapse in non‐lenalidomide refractory patients.

This document is a letter to the editor regarding a research article comparing the long-term efficacy and adverse event rates of two drugs, lebrikizumab and dupilumab, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The authors of the letter raise concerns about the methodological approach used in the original article, specifically the use of an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) instead of an anchored approach. They argue that an anchored approach would provide a more accurate assessment of the relative efficacy of the two drugs. The authors also point out several other methodological flaws in the original analysis. They conclude that the results of the original article are not suitable for decision-making and recommend a re-evaluation using an anchored approach. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Risperidone ISM® is a newly developed long-acting injectable (LAI) treatment for schizophrenia in adults. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons with other similar antipsychotics, the objective of this study was to generate indirect evidence of some aspects of the safety and tolerability of Risperidone ISM compared to other LAI antipsychotics for treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the maintenance treatment setting. Methods: A literature review was conducted systematically to identify maintenance treatment studies reporting safety and tolerability outcomes for LAI antipsychotic therapies. Following an assessment of between-trial heterogeneity, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to account for between-trial imbalances in patient characteristics and to generate comparative evidence for safety and tolerability endpoints. Results: The analysis showed that incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was found to be numerically, but not statistically significantly, lower in patients receiving Risperidone ISM than in those receiving Paliperidone palmitate (PP) (OR [95% CI] 0.63 [0.29, 1.38], p = 0.253) and statistically significantly lower than with Aripiprazole monohydrate once-monthly (AOM) (OR [95% CI] 0.25 [0.12, 0.53], p < 0.001). Use of anticholinergic agents for the alleviation of EPS was also shown to be significantly lower in Risperidone ISM patients than in those receiving PP (OR [95% CI] 0.29 [0.10, 0.83], p = 0.021) or AOM (OR [95% CI] 0.01 [0.003, 0.06], p < 0.001), suggesting a superior tolerability profile for clinically relevant EPS. Results from the sensitivity analyses comparing stabilized and stable patients receiving Risperidone ISM to those receiving AOM yielded similarly favorable conclusions in line with the base case analyses. Conclusions: This MAIC is consistent with the safety and tolerability results obtained during the PRISMA-3 clinical trial in the long-term treatment of schizophrenia and suggests a favorable safety and tolerability profile in terms of EPS incidence and anticholinergic agent use, relative to other antipsychotic therapies used for treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the maintenance setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In health technology assessment (HTA), population‐adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) are increasingly considered to adjust for the difference in the target population between studies. We aim to assess the conduct and reporting of PAICs in recent HTA practice, by performing, a methodological systematic review of studies implementing PAICs from PubMed, EMBASE Classic, Embase/Ovid Medline All, and Cochrane databases from January 1, 2010 to Feb 13, 2023. Four independent researchers screened the titles, abstracts, and full‐texts of the identified records, then extracted data on methodological and reporting characteristics of 106 eligible articles. Most PAIC analyses (96.9%, n = 157) were conducted by (or received funding from) pharmaceutical companies. Prior to adjustment, 44.5% of analyses (n = 72) (partially) aligned the eligibility criteria of different studies to enhance the similarity of their target populations. In 37.0% of analyses (n = 60), the clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies were extensively assessed. In 9.3% of analyses (n = 15), the quality (or bias) of individual studies was evaluated. Among 18 analyses using methods that required an outcome model specification, results of the model fitting procedure were adequately reported in three analyses (16.7%). These findings suggest that the conduct and reporting of PAICs are remarkably heterogeneous and suboptimal in current practice. More recommendations and guidelines on PAICs are thus warranted to enhance the quality of these analyses in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Risankizumab (RZB) and ustekinumab (UST), interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors, respectively, are approved treatments for moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD); direct comparison between the two is ongoing. We indirectly compared efficacy of RZB versus UST using data from phase 3 trials (RZB: NCT03104413; NCT03105128; NCT03105102; UST: NCT01369329; NCT01369342; NCT01369355). Methods: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient-level data from RZB trials and published aggregated data from UST trials. During induction, patients received RZB 600 mg intravenous (IV) at weeks 0, 4, and 8 or a single dose of UST 6 mg/kg IV at week 0. During maintenance, patients received RZB 180 or 360 mg subcutaneous (SC) or UST 90 mg SC every 8 or 12 weeks to 52 weeks. Outcomes included proportion of patients achieving Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response (decrease of ≥ 100 points or total score < 150) or remission (CDAI ≤ 150) and endoscopic improvement (measured by the Simple Endoscopic Score in CD [SES-CD]; response, ≥ 50% reduction from baseline; remission, SES-CD ≤ 2) following induction/baseline. Results: Higher proportions of patients achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with RZB vs. UST induction treatment, resulting in significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater percent differences (95% confidence intervals) between groups for CDAI remission (15% [5%, 25%]) and endoscopic response (26% [13%, 40%]) and remission (9% [0%, 19%]). Following maintenance, rates of CDAI remission were similar (range − 0.3% to − 5.0%) for RZB vs. UST. Differences for endoscopic response and remission ranged from 9.3% to 27.7% and 11.6% to 12.5%, respectively; differences were significant (p < 0.05) for endoscopic response for both doses of RZB compared to UST 12-week dosing. Conclusions: This indirect comparison demonstrated higher rates of clinical and endoscopic outcomes during induction for RZB compared to UST; CDAI remission following maintenance was comparable. Direct comparisons of RZB and UST are warranted to validate these findings. Plain Language Summary: Using individual patient-level data from risankizumab and aggregated data from ustekinumab phase 3 Crohn's disease trials, we indirectly compared efficacy of risankizumab and ustekinumab to determine whether rates of improvement in disease symptoms (clinical) and endoscopic outcomes differed between treatments. Findings showed that clinical and endoscopic outcomes were more frequently achieved for patients receiving risankizumab versus ustekinumab after induction, while most maintenance outcomes were comparable. [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]

BackgroundNo trials have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib for the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).ObjectivesConduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the efficacy and safety of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and disease progression after prior sorafenib.MethodsThe CELESTIAL and RESORCE trials were used for indirect comparison of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in advanced HCC. Population-level data were available for RESORCE, individual patient data (IPD) for CELESTIAL. To align with RESORCE, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only. To minimize potential effect-modifying population differences, the CELESTIAL IPD were weighted to balance the distribution of clinically relevant baseline characteristics with those of RESORCE. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated for the matching-adjusted second-line CELESTIAL population and compared with those for RESORCE using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric modeling. Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affecting > 5% of patients in any study arm were compared.ResultsIn the matching-adjusted second-line populations (CELESTIAL, effective sample size = 266; RESORCE, n = 573), median (95% confidence interval) OS was similar for cabozantinib and regorafenib (11.4 [8.9-17.0] versus 10.6 [9.1-12.1] months; p = 0.3474, log-rank test). Median PFS was longer for cabozantinib than regorafenib (5.6 [4.9-7.3] versus 3.1 [2.8-4.2] months; p = 0.0005, log-rank test). There was a trend for lower rates of some grade 3/4 TEAEs with regorafenib than with cabozantinib, which may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE but not from CELESTIAL, a difference that the MAIC methods could not remove. Only diarrhea rates were statistically significantly lower for regorafenib (p  ≤ 0.001).ConclusionsCabozantinib may achieve similar OS and prolonged PFS compared with regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after prior sorafenib.

Abstract Introduction The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs. Methods Patient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP)

Introduction: The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs. Methods: Patient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, DAS28-CRP < 2.6, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) < 3.3, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < 2.8 at 12 weeks. Results: The analysis included 365 patients from TARGET and aggregated data of 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND. Matching for potential treatment effect baseline modifiers (i.e., age, oral glucocorticoid use, tender joint count of 68 counts, swollen joint count of 66 counts, serum CRP level, and patient global assessment of disease activity) resulted in a reduction of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 166. Following MAIC and STC analysis, the odds of achieving all aforementioned clinical outcomes versus placebo at week 12 were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib. Conclusion: In the MAIC and STC analyses from TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials, the efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib were comparable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent issue of the Journal; Remiro‐Azócar et al. introduce a new method to adjust for population difference between two trials; when the individual patient data (IPD) are only accessible for one study. The proposed method generates the covariate data for the trial without IPD; then using a G‐computation approach to transport information about the treatment effect from the other study with IPD to this trial. The authors advocate the use of G‐computation over matching‐adjusted indirect comparison because (i) the former allows for "useful extrapolation" when there is poor case‐mix overlap between populations; and (ii) nonparametric; data‐adaptive methods can be used to reduce the risk of (outcome) model misspecification. In this commentary; we provide a different perspective from these arguments. Despite certain disagreements; we believe that the proposed data generation approaches can open new and interesting research directions for population adjustment methodology in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Backgound: Lenalidomide‐based regimens are commonly used for early relapse in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) receiving at least one prior line of therapy. In the absence of head‐to‐head comparison, matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to demonstrate efficacy and safety of isatuximab+carfilzomib+dexamethasone (Isa‐Kd) versus daratumumab + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Dara‐Rd) in RRMM. Methods: Patient‐level data from IKEMA trial (Isa‐Kd, n = 179) were matched to aggregate data from POLLUX (Dara‐Rd, n = 286). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were generated by weighted Cox proportional hazard models. Odds ratios (OR), 95% CI, and p‐value were calculated for ≥very good partial response (≥VGPR) and treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: After matching, no significant differences were observed between Isa‐Kd and Dara‐Rd in baseline characteristics except for patients with >3 prior lines (0.0% vs. 4.9%). Isa‐Kd showed significantly better PFS (HR [95% CI]: 0.46 [0.24–0.86]; p = 0.0155), statistically non‐significant improvement favoring Isa‐Kd in OS (0.47 [0.20–1.09]; 0.0798), and ≥VGPR (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.89–2.64]; p = 0.1252) than Dara‐Rd. Odds of occurrence were significantly lower for some all‐grade and grade 3/4 TEAEs with Isa‐Kd than Dara‐Rd. Conclusion: These results support Isa‐Kd as an efficacious treatment for early relapse in non‐lenalidomide refractory patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the absence of head-to-head trials, this study compared treatment outcomes with the C3 complement inhibitor pegcetacoplan versus the C5 complement inhibitor eculizumab or ravulizumab in complement inhibitor-naïve patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient data from the pegcetacoplan arm of the PRINCE trial (NCT04085601; n = 34) and aggregate data from the ravulizumab (n = 125) and eculizumab (n = 121) arms of the ALXN1210-PNH-301 trial (NCT03056040). Clinical and quality of life endpoints were evaluated after matching patients in the two trials on baseline characteristics. The weighted Wald test with 95% confidence interval was used to compare categorical and continuous variables (i.e., weighted chi-squared and z tests, respectively). Bias factor analysis was performed to quantify the extent of residual bias from unmeasured confounders. Results: After weighting, treatment with pegcetacoplan was associated with statistically significant improvements in most clinical endpoints compared with ravulizumab or eculizumab treatment. These included: greater absolute and percent reductions in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level and increase in hemoglobin level from baseline; shorter time to first occurrence of LDH normalization; larger proportions of patients achieving hemoglobin stabilization and avoiding transfusion, with fewer packed red blood cell units transfused; and a smaller proportion of patients experiencing breakthrough hemolysis (all p < 0.05). Patients receiving pegcetacoplan also had a greater increase in general health status score from baseline compared with those receiving C5 complement inhibitors. Conclusion: Pegcetacoplan provides clinical benefits as first-line treatment for complement inhibitor-naïve patients with PNH. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04085601. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failure to adjust for effect modifiers (EMs) in indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can produce biased and uncertain effect estimates. This is particularly important for health technology assessments (HTAs), where the availability of new treatments is based on comparative effectiveness results. Much emphasis has been placed on advancing ITC methods to adjust for EMs, yet whether EMs are appropriately identified for the conduct of ITCs in the first place is unclear. To understand the extent of guidance and requirements for the selection of EMs for ITCs currently available and if and how this guidance is applied in practice, a series of pragmatic reviews of guidance documents from HTA and non-payer organizations, primary published ITC analyses, and prior HTA submissions in two indications (non-small cell lung cancer and psoriasis) was conducted. The reviews showed that current ITC guidance mainly focused on developing analytical methods to adjust for EMs. Some organizations, such as HTA bodies in the UK, France and Germany, recommended the use of literature reviews, expert opinion and statistical methods to identify EMs. No detailed guidance on the selection process or the appropriate literature review approach was found. Similar trends were identified through the database search and review of prior HTA submissions; only few published ITCs and submissions included information on the EM selection process which was either based on findings from the literature, trial subgroup analyses, or clinical input. No reference to a systematic selection approach was found. There is an urgent need to fill the guidance gap identified across the reviews by including a step in ITC guidelines on how EMs should be identified through systematic reviews, formal expert elicitation, and a quantitative assessment of the EM distribution. Researchers and manufacturers are also encouraged to improve transparent reporting and justification of their selection of EMs to allow for an independent review of the set of factors being considered for adjustment. Both will contribute toward reducing bias in the ITC results and ultimately increase confidence in decision-making.

Abstract 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.

Aim: Compare lurbinectedin versus other second-line (2L) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments. Methods: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison connected the platinum-sensitive SCLC cohort of a single-arm lurbinectedin trial to a network of three randomized controlled trials (oral and intravenous [IV] topotecan, and platinum re-challenge) identified by systematic literature review. Network meta-analysis methods estimated relative treatment effects. Results: In platinum-sensitive patients, lurbinectedin demonstrated a survival benefit and favorable safety profile versus oral and IV topotecan and platinum re-challenge (overall survival, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.27, 0.67; HR: 0.43; 95% CrI: 0.26, 0.70; HR: 0.42; 95% CrI: 0.30, 0.58 respectively). Conclusion: Lurbinectedin showed a robust survival benefit and favorable safety versus other SCLC treatments in 2L platinum-sensitive SCLC.

Abstract 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.

To undertake a comparison of Cal/BDP cream versus foam for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, with cross-trial population differences accounted for. An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was undertaken, using individual patient data for Cal/BDP cream and published aggregated data for Cal/BDP foam. Altogether, 11 outcomes were analyzed, including PGA success, mPASI75, DLQI-related outcomes and treatment satisfaction across numerous domains. For each outcome an odds ratio or mean difference was calculated to represent the relative efficacy of Cal/BDP cream versus foam. Methods were guided by NICE Decision Support Unit recommendations. After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment arms in each analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in PGA success, mPASI75 or DLQI outcomes between Cal/BDP cream and foam when they were compared after their recommended treatment durations (8 weeks for cream and 4 weeks for foam). For treatment satisfaction after 1 week of treatment, Cal/BDP cream was significantly superior to the Cal/BDP foam in all but one domain of the questionnaire. Cal/BDP cream and Cal/BDP foam have equivalent efficacy and HRQoL (measured in DLQI) outcomes when used for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis at their recommended treatment durations. A comparison of treatment satisfaction assessments after 1 week of treatment demonstrated that patients find Cal/BDP cream to be more convenient than foam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Entrectinib and crizotinib are the only ROS proto-oncogene 1 receptor (ROS1) tyrosine kinase inhibitors available for most Asian patients. Their efficacy has neither been compared directly in clinical trials in patients with ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nor indirectly in Asian populations. Thus, we aimed to provide comparative evidence of the efficacy and safety of entrectinib and crizotinib for Asian patients with advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive NSCLC., Materials and Methods: Efficacy, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and safety were evaluated using an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Individual patient data (IPD) from entrectinib trials (ALKA-372-001/EudraCT 2012-000148-88, STARTRK-1/NCT02097810, and STARTRK-2/NCT02568267; dosage, ≥600 mg once daily; enrollment cutoff, 02 July 2020; data cutoff, 02 August 2021) and aggregate data with simulated pseudo-IPD from a crizotinib trial (OxOnc/NCT01945021; dosage, 250 mg twice daily) were analyzed. Key eligibility criteria from the crizotinib trial were applied to IPD from the entrectinib trials. Baseline characteristics were match-adjusted between arms using propensity score weighting., Results: Fifty-two and 127 patients from the entrectinib and crizotinib trials, respectively, were available for evaluation. Median OS was not reached (NR; weighted; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 28.3-NR) in the entrectinib arm and 44.2 months (95 % CI 32.0-NR) in the crizotinib arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.662; 95 % CI 0.32-1.37). The respective median PFS was 39.4 months (weighted; 95 % CI 10.4-46.8) and 15.9 months (95 % CI 12.9-24.0) (HR, 0.688; 95 % CI 0.37-1.27). Most AEs were Grade 1-2; both drugs were generally well tolerated. Neutropenia was the most common Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event for both entrectinib and crizotinib., Conclusions: The outcomes in this MAIC study including Asian patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC showed a trend for greater clinical benefit with entrectinib versus crizotinib. These findings may contribute to better-informed treatment decisions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Yongfeng Yu, Yun Fan, Yan Yu, Xiaorong Dong, Juan Li, Jun Zhao, and Xichun Hu received investigator fees from Shanghai Roche Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Sha Tao, Mo Chen, Yujun Chen, Yueming Liu, Jiahui Xu, and Qiaonan Zhu are full-time employees of Shanghai Roche Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Shun Lu received research support from AstraZeneca, Hutchison, Heng Rui, Beigene, Roche, and Hansoh; received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Hansoh, and Heng Rui; had an advisory and consultant role at AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hutchison MediPharma, ZaiLab, GenomiCare, Yuhan Corporation, Menarini, InventisBio Co. Ltd., and Roche; was a scientific board member of Simcere Zaiming Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical; and had the role of independent director as an Innovent Board member., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)