Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Recombinant Factor IX Albumin Fusion Protein Versus Recombinant Factor IX Fc Fusion Protein for Weekly Prophylactic Treatment of Hemophilia B.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic treatment of hemophilia B with recombinant factor IX (rFIX) molecules with enhanced pharmacokinetics including rIX-FP (albutrepenonacog alfa; Idelvion©) and rFIXFc (eftrenonacog alfa; Alprolix©) have commonly been used in the clinic. In the absence of head-to-head comparative trials, the aim of this study was to estimate the efficacy of rIX-FP versus rFIXFc using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: MAIC analyses leveraged individual patient data from the PROLONG-9FP trial and published summary-level data from the B-LONG trial for subjects who received weekly prophylaxis regimens. Individual patient data were used to assign weights and balance subjects from PROLONG-9FP with subjects from B-LONG on baseline disease severity, age, prior FIX regimen, and body mass index (BMI). Six efficacy outcomes were analyzed including annualized bleeding rate (ABR), annualized spontaneous bleeding rate (AsBR), annualized joint bleeding rate (AjBR), and the proportion of subjects without bleeding events (for total, spontaneous, and joint bleeding events). RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline disease severity, age, prior FIX regimen, and BMI, rIX-FP was associated with a statistically significant decrease in AsBR (rate ratio [RR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22, 0.82; P = 0.0107), and the proportion of patients without bleeding events (odds ratio [OR] 3.24; 95% CI 1.41, 7.45; P = 0.0057), spontaneous bleeding events (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.56, 7.73; P = 0.0023), and joint bleeding events (OR 2.41; 95% CI 1.10, 5.26; P = 0.0274) compared with rFIXFc. Prophylactic treatment with rIX-FP was also associated with a numerically lower ABR (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32, 1.75; P = 0.5095) and AjBR (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.37, 1.82; P = 0.6178). CONCLUSION: The MAICs demonstrated that weekly prophylaxis treatment of severe hemophilia B with rIX-FP resulted in favorable efficacy outcomes as compared to rFIXFc. These findings suggest rIX-FP may offer improved clinical benefits over rFIXFc.

Indirect treatment comparison of anifrolumab efficacy versus belimumab in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus.

Aim: Assess the comparative efficacy of anifrolumab 300 mg versus belimumab 10 mg/kg in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving standard therapy. Patients and methods: Population-adjusted simulated treatment comparisons (primary analyses) and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (supporting analyses) were conducted using individual patient data from TULIP-1/TULIP-2 and summary-level data from BLISS-52/BLISS-76. Results: Compared with belimumab-treated patients, anifrolumab-treated patients were more than twice as likely to achieve a reduction of four or more points in SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score (simulated treatment comparison odds ratio: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.16-5.25) and SLE Responder Index-4 response (odds ratio: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.22-5.58) at 52 weeks. Conclusion: Patients with moderate-to-severe SLE are more likely to achieve an improvement in disease activity with anifrolumab than with belimumab.

Tezepelumab compared with other biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.