Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of amivantamab vs mobocertinib in platinum-pretreated EGFR Exon 20 insertion-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis 3L of axicabtagene ciloleucel vs tisagenlecleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel in Japan.

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.

[Box: see text].

Cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol versus dl-3-n-butylphthalide for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a Chinese health care perspective.

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.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of bleeding outcomes in severe haemophilia A: Comparing valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene therapy, emicizumab prophylaxis, and FVIII replacement prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: Head-to-head evaluation of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, the first gene therapy approved for haemophilia A, with emicizumab is not available. Therefore, phase 3 trial data were indirectly compared. AIM: To compare bleeding rates in trials evaluating 6 × 1013  vg/kg valoctocogene roxaparvovec (GENEr8-1; NCT03370913), 1.5 mg/kg emicizumab dosed every week (HAVEN 3; NCT02847637), and FVIII prophylaxis (270-902) in participants with severe haemophilia A (FVIII ≤1 IU/dL). METHODS: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab and FVIII prophylaxis as used in 270-902 versus emicizumab cross-trial comparisons were performed using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Individual participant data from GENEr8-1 and 270-902 were weighted to equalise aggregate participant baseline characteristics from HAVEN 3. After MAIC weighting, annualised bleeding rates (ABR) and proportions of participants without bleeds were compared for treated bleeds, all bleeds, treated joint bleeds, and treated spontaneous bleeds. RESULTS: After MAIC weighting, ABR for all bleeds was statistically significantly lower with valoctocogene roxaparvovec than emicizumab (rate ratio [95% CI], .55 [.33-.93]). Additionally, significantly higher proportions of participants had no treated joint bleeds (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.75 [1.20-6.31]) and no treated bleeds (3.25 [1.53-6.90]) with valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab. When compared with the mainly standard half-life FVIII prophylaxis regimens in 270-902, mean ABRs (except for all bleeds) were significantly lower, and significantly higher proportions reported 0 bleeds for all outcomes with emicizumab. CONCLUSION: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec provided generally lower bleeding rates and higher probability of no bleeds, including treated joint bleeds, than emicizumab. Emicizumab was more effective than FVIII prophylaxis regimens used in 270-902.

A Comparison of Relative-Efficacy Estimate(S) Derived From Both Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons and Standard Anchored Indirect Treatment Comparisons: A Review of Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Extrapyramidal adverse events and anticholinergics use after the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia with the new long-acting antipsychotic Risperidone ISM®: results from matching-adjusted indirect comparisons versus once-monthly formulations of Paliperidone palmitate and Aripiprazole monohydrate in 52-week studies.

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.

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary analysis. RESULTS: The SURPASS-2 refined population comprised 238/245/240 and 240 participants for tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg and semaglutide 1 mg, respectively. The SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only population comprised 222 and 227 participants for semaglutide 1 and 2 mg, respectively. In this aITC, tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus semaglutide 2 mg with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.63, -0.09) and -0.4% (95% CI -0.67, -0.13), respectively. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced body weight versus semaglutide 2 mg with an ETD of -3.15 kg (95% CI -4.84, -1.46) and -5.15 kg (95% CI -6.85, -3.45), respectively. There were no significant differences between tirzepatide 5 mg and semaglutide 2 mg on change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In this aITC, HbA1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg and were similar for tirzepatide 5 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

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.

Indirect treatment comparisons of avapritinib versus midostaurin for patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis.

Objective: This research aimed to compare the relative efficacy of avapritinib versus midostaurin for patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis. Method: A systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant evidence. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted for overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR). Results: The systematic literature review identified the clinical trials EXPLORER and PATHFINDER (investigating avapritinib) and D2201 and A2213 (investigating midostaurin). The avapritinib versus midostaurin adjusted hazard ratio for OS was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.25-0.76), and the adjusted odds ratios for ORR and CR were 4.06 (95% CI: 3.09-5.33) and 9.56 (95% CI: 0.97-93.81), respectively. Conclusion: The results suggest that avapritinib improves survival and response (ORR and CR) compared with midostaurin.

Systemic mastocytosis is a rare blood disorder caused by the build-up of too many abnormal mast cells, a type of white blood cell, in the skin and organs. Patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis have a low life expectancy and limited treatment options. This research aimed to compare the effectiveness of two recent and innovative treatments (called avapritinib and midostaurin) in extending life expectancy and decreasing mast cells and organ damage. As avapritinib and midostaurin were not investigated in the same clinical studies, it was necessary to compare the two treatments using the results from studies of each individual treatment. The published evidence used to support this comparison was systematically searched for and consisted of four clinical studies: the EXPLORER and PATHFINDER studies (investigating avapritinib) and D2201 and A2213 studies (investigating midostaurin). An indirect comparison between the studies was made that adjusted for differences in key patient characteristics. The results suggest that compared with midostaurin, avapritinib has the potential to extend life expectancy and decrease disease burden.

Indirect comparisons of brigatinib and alectinib for front-line ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: To conduct an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of the relative efficacy of brigatinib and alectinib for progression-free survival in people with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Final aggregate and patient-level data from the ALTA-1L trial comparing brigatinib to crizotinib and published aggregate data from ALEX (comparing alectinib to crizotinib) were contrasted using Bucher ITC and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). Results: No statistically significant differences were identified between brigatinib and alectinib in reducing the risk of disease progression overall and in patients with baseline central nervous system metastases. Conclusion: Brigatinib appeared similar to alectinib in reducing risk of disease progression for people with TKI-naive ALK-positive NSCLC.

Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have a genetic marker called rearrangement in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK-positive disease, are treated with targeted medications taken by mouth. Two medications, alectinib and brigatinib, are both considered first-line treatment for these patients but have not been compared head-to-head. Recently, updated clinical trial results were published for these medications. The present study utilized these updated results and advanced statistical tests to indirectly compare the effectiveness of the two treatments to help guide clinical treatment choices. Results showed brigatinib and alectinib have a similar magnitude of effect in decreasing the risk of a patient with ALK-positive NSCLC developing worsening disease.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Rimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: When matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains. CONCLUSIONS: When adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

Matching-adjusted comparison of oral corticosteroid reduction in asthma: Systematic review of biologics.

BACKGROUND: Oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment for severe asthma is associated with substantial disease burden. Thus, OCS dosage reduction is desirable. Relative efficacy of biologics in reducing OCS treatment for severe, uncontrolled asthma is not fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: We performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to assess the relative effects on OCS treatment reduction of three biologic asthma treatments. METHODS: In MAIC of benralizumab vs. mepolizumab and vs. dupilumab, patient-level data from the Phase III benralizumab OCS-sparing trial, ZONDA, were weighted to match treatment effect-modifying patient characteristics in comparator trials. RESULTS: After matching adjustment, mean difference between benralizumab and mepolizumab for OCS reduction was 6.08% (95% CI -22.22-34.38; P = .67) by week 24, and odds ratio of OCS elimination was 2.32 (95% CI 0.48-11.15; P = .29). A trend in annual asthma exacerbation rate reduction favouring benralizumab over mepolizumab was observed, although it was not statistically significant (rate ratio [RR] = 0.56 [95% CI 0.28-1.13; P = .11]). Mean difference between benralizumab and dupilumab for OCS reduction was -0.71% (95% CI -20.56-19.15; P = .94), and odds ratio of OCS elimination was 2.26 (95% CI 0.52-9.84; P = .28). A non-significant trend in annual asthma exacerbation rate reduction favouring benralizumab over dupilumab was observed (RR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.20-1.28; P = .15]). Effective sample size was 49% (72 vs. 148) and 25% (36 vs. 142) of original sample size for MAIC of benralizumab vs. mepolizumab and benralizumab vs. dupilumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Following patient baseline characteristics matching across clinical trials, benralizumab demonstrated efficacy comparable to mepolizumab and dupilumab for OCS dosage reduction, OCS elimination, and annual exacerbation rate reduction. Comparatively low effective sample sizes indicated substantial differences for patient populations between ZONDA and mepolizumab and dupilumab trials.

Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study.

Standard network meta-analysis and indirect comparisons combine aggregate data from multiple studies on treatments of interest, assuming that any factors that interact with treatment effects (effect modifiers) are balanced across populations. Population adjustment methods such as multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR), matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC) relax this assumption using individual patient data from one or more studies, and are becoming increasingly prevalent in health technology appraisals and the applied literature. Motivated by an applied example and two recent reviews of applications, we undertook an extensive simulation study to assess the performance of these methods in a range of scenarios under various failures of assumptions. We investigated the impact of varying sample size, missing effect modifiers, strength of effect modification and validity of the shared effect modifier assumption, validity of extrapolation and varying between-study overlap, and different covariate distributions and correlations. ML-NMR and STC performed similarly, eliminating bias when the requisite assumptions were met. Serious concerns are raised for MAIC, which performed poorly in nearly all simulation scenarios and may even increase bias compared with standard indirect comparisons. All methods incur bias when an effect modifier is missing, highlighting the necessity of careful selection of potential effect modifiers prior to analysis. When all effect modifiers are included, ML-NMR and STC are robust techniques for population adjustment. ML-NMR offers additional advantages over MAIC and STC, including extending to larger treatment networks and producing estimates in any target population, making this an attractive choice in a variety of scenarios.

Summarising salient information on historical controls: A structured assessment of validity and comparability across studies.

BACKGROUND: While placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials remain the standard way to evaluate drugs for efficacy, historical data are used extensively across the development cycle. This ranges from supplementing contemporary data to increase the power of trials to cross-trial comparisons in estimating comparative efficacy. In many cases, these approaches are performed without in-depth review of the context of data, which may lead to bias and incorrect conclusions. METHODS: We discuss the original 'Pocock' criteria for the use of historical data and how the use of historical data has evolved over time. Based on these factors and personal experience, we created a series of questions that may be asked of historical data, prior to their use. Based on the answers to these questions, various statistical approaches are recommended. The strategy is illustrated with a case study in colorectal cancer. RESULTS: A number of areas need to be considered with historical data, which we split into three categories: outcome measurement, study/patient characteristics (including setting and inclusion/exclusion criteria), and disease process/intervention effects. Each of these areas may introduce issues if not appropriately handled, while some may preclude the use of historical data entirely. We present a tool (in the form of a table) for highlighting any such issues. Application of the tool to a colorectal cancer data set demonstrates under what conditions historical data could be used and what the limitations of such an analysis would be. CONCLUSION: Historical data can be a powerful tool to augment or compare with contemporary trial data, though caution is required. We present some of the issues that may be considered when involving historical data and what (if any) statistical approaches may account for differences between studies. We recommend that, where historical data are to be used in analyses, potential differences between studies are addressed explicitly.

Combination of several matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) with an application in psoriasis.

In health technology assessment (HTA), beside network meta-analysis (NMA), indirect comparisons (IC) have become an important tool used to provide evidence between two treatments when no head-to-head data are available. Researchers may use the adjusted indirect comparison based on the Bucher method (AIC) or the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). While the Bucher method may provide biased results when included trials differ in baseline characteristics that influence the treatment outcome (treatment effect modifier), this issue may be addressed by applying the MAIC method if individual patient data (IPD) for at least one part of the AIC is available. Here, IPD is reweighted to match baseline characteristics and/or treatment effect modifiers of published data. However, the MAIC method does not provide a solution for situations when several common comparators are available. In these situations, assuming that the indirect comparison via the different common comparators is homogeneous, we propose merging these results by using meta-analysis methodology to provide a single, potentially more precise, treatment effect estimate. This paper introduces the method to combine several MAIC networks using classic meta-analysis techniques, it discusses the advantages and limitations of this approach, as well as demonstrates a practical application to combine several (M)AIC networks using data from Phase III psoriasis randomized control trials (RCT).

Indirect comparison of vedolizumab and adalimumab for biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis.

AIM: Indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of vedolizumab with adalimumab in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Vedolizumab is a gut-selective medication for moderate to severe UC. Since no comparative trials are available for direct comparison of vedolizumab vs adalimumab in UC, a systematic review of literature databases was conducted to identify randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the two drugs in patients with moderate to severe UC after failure of conventional treatment. Studies were screened for eligibility by two reviewers based on predefined inclusion criteria. Bucher's adjusted indirect comparison was used to compare vedolizumab and adalimumab indirectly through placebo as common comparator. RESULTS: One vedolizumab study (GEMINI 1) and three adalimumab studies (ULTRA 1, ULTRA 2 and M10-447) met the eligibility criteria. Baseline characteristics of the included populations were similar in biologic-naïve UC patients across study arms. Although no statistically significant differences between treatments were found for induction efficacy endpoints, there was a trend toward a benefit of vedolizumab over adalimumab. There were also no significant differences between treatments for any maintenance efficacy endpoints, with no clear trend favoring either agent. Vedolizumab exhibited statistically superior maintenance safety compared with adalimumab, with significant reductions in risks of adverse events (relative risk 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.57-0.80]; p < .0001), serious adverse events (0.20 [0.09-0.42]; p < .0001) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (0.14 [0.05-0.43]; p = .0006). CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that vedolizumab has comparable efficacy to adalimumab with improved safety in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe UC.

Seven Hormonal Biomarkers for Diagnosing Endometriosis: Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of different hormonal biomarkers and to find the most effective hormonal biomarker for the diagnosis of endometriosis. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China Biomedical Literature to identify relevant studies from the first day of databases to August 2018. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened for study eligibility and extracted data. Random controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of hormonal markers for endometriosis were included. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We included 17 studies that involved 1279 participants and evaluated 7 hormonal biomarkers. The pooled sensitivity and specificity in endometriosis were .79 (.71, .86) and .89 (.82, .94) for aromatase, .30 (.18, .46) and .80 (.65, .90) for human chorionic gonadotropin/luteinizing hormone receptor, .75 (.66, .83) and .47 (.34, .60) for estrogen receptor (ER)-α, .65 (.56, .74) and .68 (.55, .80) for ER-ß, .45 (.38-.52) and .92 (.85-.97) for serum prolactin, .69 (.51, .83) and .30 (.16, .49) for estrogen sulfotransferase, and .73 (.60-.84) and .48 (.33-.63) for 17ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (17ßHSD2). Compared with human chorionic gonadotropin/luteinizing hormone receptor, ER-α, ER-ß, estrogen sulfotransferase, and 17ßHSD2, aromatase had a higher sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. The specificities of aromatase and serum prolactin were comparable, but the sensitivity, positive likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio of serum prolactin were much lower than that of aromatase. CONCLUSION: Aromatase may be an excellent diagnostic test for endometriosis. However, because of the moderate quality of the included studies and the limited sample size, this result requires more research to validate. (PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018105126.).

Comparative Efficacy of Daratumumab Monotherapy and Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab (a human CD38-directed monoclonal antibody) and pomalidomide (an immunomodulatory drug) plus dexamethasone are both relatively new treatment options for patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. A matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to compare absolute treatment effects of daratumumab versus pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDex; 40 mg) on overall survival (OS), while adjusting for differences between the trial populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MAIC method reduces the risk of bias associated with naïve indirect comparisons. Data from 148 patients receiving daratumumab (16 mg/kg), pooled from the GEN501 and SIRIUS studies, were compared separately with data from patients receiving pomalidomide + LoDex in the MM-003 and STRATUS studies. RESULTS: The MAIC-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for OS of daratumumab versus pomalidomide + LoDex was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.83; p = .0041) for MM-003 and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.69; p < .0001) for STRATUS. The treatment benefit was even more pronounced when the daratumumab population was restricted to pomalidomide-naïve patients (MM-003: HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; p = .0017; STRATUS: HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79; p = .0082). An additional analysis indicated a consistent trend of the OS benefit across subgroups based on M-protein level reduction (≥50%, ≥25%, and <25%). CONCLUSION: The MAIC results suggest that daratumumab improves OS compared with pomalidomide + LoDex in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This matching adjusted indirect comparison of clinical trial data from four studies analyzes the survival outcomes of patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who received either daratumumab monotherapy or pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. Using this method, daratumumab conferred a significant overall survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. In the absence of head-to-head trials, these indirect comparisons provide useful insights to clinicians and reimbursement authorities around the relative efficacy of treatments.

Relative short-term efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine versus vortioxetine in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder.

Agomelatine and vortioxetine are antidepressants with different mechanisms of action compared to other pharmaceutical treatment options. The objective of this present analysis is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine (25-50 mg) compared to vortioxetine (10-15-20 mg) in adult patients with major depressive disorder. We performed an adjusted indirect comparison using placebo as a common control. The main outcomes were efficacy (response to treatment by Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale/Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and acceptability (withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse events). 10 agomelatine and 11 vortioxetine studies were included in the analysis. For efficacy, no difference was shown between agomelatine and vortioxetine (E[95% CI] = -0.03 [-0.12;0.05]). For acceptability, no significant difference was found between both antidepressants. These findings substantiate current understanding that most antidepressants are of similar average efficacy and tolerability. Such equivalent therapeutic benefit of both compounds, measured by a quantitative clinical research approach, has to be discussed with the knowledge of a qualitative estimation in routine practice.

Evaluating Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Practice: A Case Study of Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Differences in patient characteristics across trials may bias efficacy estimates from indirect treatment comparisons. To address this issue, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) measures treatment efficacy after weighting individual patient data to match patient characteristics across trials. To date, however, there is no consensus on how best to implement MAIC. To address this issue, we applied MAIC to measure how two attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments (guanfacine extended release and atomoxetine hydrochloride) affect patients' ADHD symptoms, as measured by the ADHD Rating Scale IV score. We tested MAIC sensitivity to: matched patient characteristics, matched statistical moments, weighting matrix, and placebo-arm matching (i.e., matching on outcomes in the placebo arm). After applying MAIC, guanfacine and atomoxetine had similar reductions in ADHD symptoms (Δ: 0.4, p < 0.737). The results were similar for three of four sensitivity analyses. When we applied MAIC with placebo-arm matching, however, guanfacine reduced symptoms more than atomoxetine (Δ: -3.9, p < 0.004). We discuss the implication of this finding and advise MAIC practitioners to carefully consider the use of placebo-arm matching, depending on the presence of residual confounding across trials. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.