Indirect treatment comparisons of the gene therapy etranacogene dezaparvovec versus extended half-life factor IX therapies for severe or moderately severe haemophilia B.

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

A targeted review of worldwide indirect treatment comparison (ITC) guidelines and best practices.

OBJECTIVES: Controls and governance over the methodology and reporting of indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) have been introduced to minimize bias and ensure scientific credibility and transparency in healthcare decision-making. The objective of this study was to highlight ITC techniques that are key to conducting objective and analytically-sound analyses, and to ascertain circumstantial suitability of ITCs as a source of comparative evidence for healthcare interventions. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE® was searched from January 2010 through August 2023 to identify publicly available ITC-related documents (i.e., guidelines and best practices) in the English language. This was supplemented with hand-searches of websites of various international organizations, regulatory agencies, and reimbursement agencies of Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. The jurisdiction-specific ITC methodology and reporting recommendations were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight guidelines from 10 authorities worldwide were included for synthesis. Many of the included guidelines were updated within the last five years and commonly cited the absence of direct comparative studies as primary justification for employing ITCs. Most jurisdictions favored population-adjusted or anchored ITC techniques opposed to naïve comparisons. Recommendations on the reporting and presentation of these ITCs varied across authorities; however, there was some overlap among the key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Given the challenges of conducting head-to-head randomized controlled trials, comparative data from ITCs offer valuable insights into clinical effectiveness. As such, multiple ITC guidelines have emerged worldwide. According to the most recent versions of the guidelines, the suitability and subsequent acceptability of the ITC technique employed depends on the data sources, available evidence, and magnitude of benefit/uncertainty.

Acupuncture versus tricyclic antidepressants in the prophylactic treatment of tension-type headaches: an indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture showed better improvement than sham acupuncture in reducing attack frequency of tension-type headache (TTH), but its effectiveness relative to first-line drugs for TTH is unknown, which impedes the recommendation of acupuncture for patients who are intolerant to drugs for TTH. We aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness between acupuncture and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) through indirect treatment comparison (ITC) meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception until April 13, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of TCAs or acupuncture in the prevention of TTH in adults were included. The primary outcome was headache frequency. The secondary outcomes were headache intensity, responder rate, and adverse event rate. Bayesian random-effect models were used to perform ITC meta-analysis, and confidence of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 34 trials involving 4426 participants were included. Acupuncture had similar effect with TCAs in decreasing TTH frequency (amitriptyline: mean difference [MD] -1.29, 95% CI -5.28 to 3.02; amitriptylinoxide: MD -0.05, 95% CI -6.86 to 7.06) and reducing TTH intensity (amitriptyline: MD 2.35, 95% CI -1.20 to 5.78; clomipramine: MD 1.83, 95% CI -4.23 to 8.20). Amitriptyline had a higher rate of adverse events than acupuncture (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.42 to 14.23). CONCLUSION: Acupuncture had similar effect as TCAs in reducing headache frequency of TTH, and acupuncture had a lower adverse events rate than amitriptyline, as shown by very low certainty of evidence.

Indirect comparisons of efficacy of zanubrutinib versus orelabrutinib in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma or relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

We conducted two indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of zanubrutinib versus orelabrutinib in Chinese patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) or R/R mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed in R/R CLL/SLL patients. Individual patient data from zanubrutinib trial (BGB-3111-205) were adjusted to match the aggregated data from the orelabrutinib trial (ICP-CL-00103). A naïve comparison was performed in R/R MCL for the different response assessment methodology and efficacy analysis set between the zanubrutinib (BGB-3111-206) and orelabrutinib (ICP-CL-00102) trials. Efficacy outcomes included ORR and PFS. In R/R CLL/SLL patients, after matching, IRC-assessed ORR was comparable (86.6% vs. 92.5%; risk difference, -5.9% [95% CI: -15.8%-3.8%]); IRC-assessed PFS was similar with a favorable trend in zanubrutinib over orelabrutinib (HR, 0.74 [95% CI: 0.37-1.47]) and the 18-month PFS rate was numerically higher in zanubrutinib (82.9% vs. 78.7%). In R/R MCL patients, naïve comparison showed investigator-assessed ORR was similar (83.7% vs. 87.9%; risk difference, -4.2% [95% CI: -14.8%-6.0%]), and CR rate was significantly higher in zanubrutinib over orelabrutinib (77.9% vs. 42.9%; risk difference, 35.0% [95% CI: 14.5%, 53.7%]). Investigator-assessed PFS was similar with a favorable trend (HR, 0.77 [95% CI: 0.45-1.32]) in zanubrutinib over orelabrutinib and the 12-month PFS rate was numerically higher in zanubrutinib (77.5% vs. 70.8%). MAIC result showed zanubrutinib demonstrated favorable PFS over orelabrutinib for R/R CLL/SLL patients. The naïve comparison showed zanubrutinib had favorable PFS and higher CR rate than orelabrutinib for R/R MCL patients.

Comparative efficacy and safety of Gla-300 versus IDegAsp in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on oral anti-diabetics.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine-300 once daily (Gla-300) with insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials was followed by an indirect treatment comparison of studies involving insulin naïve adults, inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0%] on OADs, who received Gla-300 or IDegAsp once daily. Outcomes of interest were change in HbA1c, blood glucose, weight and insulin dose, as well as incidence and event rate of hypoglycaemia and other adverse events. RESULTS: Four trials with broadly similar baseline patient characteristics were included in the meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparison. At 24-28 weeks, the indirect comparison of Gla-300 to IDegAsp once daily estimated no statistically significant difference for change in HbA1c (%) from baseline [mean difference of 0.10% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.39; p = .52)]; a statistically significant mean difference of -1.31 kg (95% CI: -1.97, -0.65; p < .05) for change in body weight from baseline; statistically significant odds ratios of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.93; p < .05) for incidence of any hypoglycaemia; and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.87; p < .05) for incidence of anytime confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3.0-3.1 mmol/L). No significant differences were observed for insulin dose and adverse events. CONCLUSION: In insulin-naïve patients with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs, commencing Gla-300 shows a comparable HbA1c reduction, but with significantly less weight gain and a lower incidence of any and confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with commencing IDegAsp.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy for Patients With Second-Line or Later Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with chemotherapy, for patients with second-line or later advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS: Evidence for lorlatinib was informed by the single-arm phase I/II trial B7461001. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify OS and PFS data for chemotherapy. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between lorlatinib and chemotherapy (pemetrexed/docetaxel, platinum-based, or systemic therapy) were performed. RESULTS: The SLR identified 3 relevant studies reporting PFS. Lorlatinib was associated with a significant decrease in the hazard of progression versus the 2 types of chemotherapy assessed. For PFS, the MAIC of lorlatinib versus the combined treatment arm of docetaxel or pemetrexed resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.31). When lorlatinib was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy through an MAIC, the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.40 (95% CI 0.29-0.55). An exploratory comparison was performed for OS with evidence for systemic therapy (assumed equivalent to chemotherapy) not identified in the SLR. Lorlatinib provided a significant decrease in hazard of death (OS) versus systemic therapy, with HRs ranging from 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.27) to 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy, although limitations in the analyses were identified. The evidence informing OS comparisons was highly limited but suggested benefit of lorlatinib compared with systemic therapy.

A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Using an Automated R Package.

Network meta-analysis is an extension of standard meta-analysis. It allows researchers to build a network of evidence to compare multiple interventions that may have not been compared directly in existing publications. With a Bayesian approach, network meta-analysis can be used to obtain a posterior probability distribution of all the relative treatment effects, which allows for the estimation of relative treatment effects to quantify the uncertainty of parameter estimates, and to rank all the treatments in the network. Ranking treatments using both direct and indirect evidence can provide guidance to policy makers and clinicians for making decisions. The purpose of this paper is to introduce fundamental concepts of Bayesian network meta-analysis (BNMA) to researchers in psychology and social sciences. We discuss several essential concepts of BNMA, including the assumptions of homogeneity and consistency, the fixed and random effects models, prior specification, and model fit evaluation strategies, while pointing out some issues and areas where researchers should use caution in the application of BNMA. Additionally, using an automated R package, we provide a step-by-step demonstration on how to conduct and report the findings of BNMA with a real dataset of psychological interventions extracted from PubMed.

Method's corner: Allergist's guide to network meta-analysis.

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) simultaneously estimate the effects of multiple possible treatment options for a given clinical presentation. For allergists to benefit optimally from NMAs, they must understand the process and be able to interpret the results. Through a worked example published in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, we summarize how to identify credible NMAs and interpret them with a focus on recent innovations in the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). NMAs build on traditional systematic reviews and meta-analyses that consider only direct paired comparisons by including indirect evidence, thus allowing the simultaneous assessment of the relative effect of all pairs of competing alternatives. Our framework informs clinicians of how to identify credible NMAs and address the certainty of the evidence. Trustworthy NMAs fill a critical gap in providing key inferences using direct and indirect evidence to inform clinical decision making when faced with more than two competing courses of treatment options. This document will help allergists to identify trustworthy NMAs to enhance patient care.

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 comparison of 48-week efficacy and safety of long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine maintenance every 8 weeks with daily oral standard of care antiretroviral therapy in participants with virologically suppressed HIV-1-infection.

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

Analysis of adaptive platform trials using a network approach.

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

Conflating marginal and conditional treatment effects: Comments on "Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study".

In this commentary, we highlight the importance of: (1) carefully considering and clarifying whether a marginal or conditional treatment effect is of interest in a population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison; and (2) developing distinct methodologies for estimating the different measures of effect. The appropriateness of each methodology depends on the preferred target of inference.

Comparative efficacy of cemiplimab versus other systemic treatments for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Aim: To estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, versus EGFR inhibitors, pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. Patients & methods: We performed an indirect treatment comparison of cemiplimab and other available systemic therapies for patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Results: Cemiplimab was associated with benefits in OS (hazard ratios range: 0.07-0.52) and progression-free survival (hazard ratios range: 0.30-0.67) versus EGFR inhibitors and pembrolizumab (data from KEYNOTE-629). Cemiplimab was more efficacious versus platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of OS. Conclusion: Cemiplimab may offer improvements in survival for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients compared with existing systemic therapies.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegLira in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To estimate the relative treatment effect between the fixed-ratio combinations iGlarLixi and IDegLira (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with basal insulin) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials followed by an indirect treatment comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the available fixed-ratio combinations. Main outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and target achievement [<6.5% and <7.0% (<48 and <53 mmol/mol)], fasting plasma glucose, self-monitored plasma glucose, body weight, and incidence and rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: From 4850 abstracts screened, 78 qualified for full-text article review and two randomized controlled trials were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two studies. The mean difference at 26 weeks between IDegLira and iGlarLixi was -0.36 (95% credible intervals -0.58, -0.14) % [-3.9 (-6.3, -1.5) mmol/mol] for HbA1c and -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4) mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose. No significant differences were found in HbA1c target attainment, preprandial or postprandial self-monitored plasma glucose, or body weight change. Formal comparisons of hypoglycaemia were limited by differences in definitions between the studies: in non-sulphonylurea users, incidence was 28% for IDegLira ('confirmed' at ≤3.1 mmol/L); for iGlarLixi, incidence was 9% ('documented symptomatic' at <3.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this indirect treatment comparison using two studies suggest iGlarLixi and IDegLira appear to offer similar benefits for HbA1c target achievement. However, the findings suggest differences in other glycaemia results and hypoglycaemia, which may reflect differences in study design and titration approaches.

Anti-IL-5 treatments in patients with severe asthma by blood eosinophil thresholds: Indirect treatment comparison.

BACKGROUND: Three anti-IL-5 pathway-directed therapies are approved for use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA); however, no head-to-head comparison data are available. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the efficacy of licensed doses of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab in patients with SEA, according to baseline blood eosinophil counts. METHODS: This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used data from a Cochrane review and independent searches. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials in patients aged 12 years or greater with SEA. End points included annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire score and FEV1. An ITC was performed in patients with Asthma Control Questionnaire scores of 1.5 or greater and stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. All treatments significantly reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in all blood eosinophil count subgroups. Mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 34% to 45% versus benralizumab across subgroups (rate ratio ≥400 cells/µL: 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35-0.87]; ≥300 cells/µL: 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37-0.99]; and ≥150 cells/µL: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.89]; all P < .05) and by 45% versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/µL or greater subgroup (rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85]; P = .007). Asthma control was significantly improved with mepolizumab versus benralizumab (all subgroups: P < .05) and versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/µL or greater subgroup (P = .004). Benralizumab significantly improved lung function versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/µL or greater subgroup (P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: This ITC of the licensed doses suggests that mepolizumab was associated with significantly greater improvements in clinically significant exacerbations and asthma control compared with reslizumab or benralizumab in patients with similar blood eosinophil counts.

BUGSnet: an R package to facilitate the conduct and reporting of Bayesian network Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Several reviews have noted shortcomings regarding the quality and reporting of network meta-analyses (NMAs). We suspect that this issue may be partially attributable to limitations in current NMA software which do not readily produce all of the output needed to satisfy current guidelines. RESULTS: To better facilitate the conduct and reporting of NMAs, we have created an R package called "BUGSnet" (Bayesian inference Using Gibbs Sampling to conduct a Network meta-analysis). This R package relies upon Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) to conduct Bayesian NMA using a generalized linear model. BUGSnet contains a suite of functions that can be used to describe the evidence network, estimate a model and assess the model fit and convergence, assess the presence of heterogeneity and inconsistency, and output the results in a variety of formats including league tables and surface under the cumulative rank curve (SUCRA) plots. We provide a demonstration of the functions contained within BUGSnet by recreating a Bayesian NMA found in the second technical support document composed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit (NICE-DSU). We have also mapped these functions to checklist items within current reporting and best practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: BUGSnet is a new R package that can be used to conduct a Bayesian NMA and produce all of the necessary output needed to satisfy current scientific and regulatory standards. We hope that this software will help to improve the conduct and reporting of NMAs.

Azithromycin or erythromycin? Macrolides for non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in adults: A systematic review and adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

Non-cystic fibrosis (non-CF) bronchiectasis is a condition characterized by an airway inflammatory response to bacterial pathogens. Frequent exacerbations have a major influence on the quality of life. Macrolide antibiotics have not only antibacterial but also immune-regulation effects. It is proved that macrolides have a benefit in preventing exacerbations. However, it is still uncertain whether azithromycin or erythromycin is more effective and safe. The purpose of this study was to answer the following question: Which kind of macrolide antibiotic is more effective and safe in preventing non-CF bronchiectasis exacerbation? We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials published up to May 2017 that reported on macrolides for non-CF bronchiectasis and an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (AITC) between macrolides to evaluate their efficacy and safety. The direct comparison meta-analysis found that macrolides decreased the rate of exacerbation of non-CF bronchiectasis (risk ratio (RR) = 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.55) with heterogeneity ( I2 = 63.7%, p = 0.064). The AITC showed that azithromycin had a significantly lower bronchiectasis exacerbation rate than erythromycin (RR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.403-0.947). Azithromycin increased the risk of diarrhea and abnormal pain. This meta-analysis suggested that long-term treatment with macrolides significantly reduced the incidence of non-CF bronchiectasis exacerbation. Moreover, azithromycin is more efficient than roxithromycin and erythromycin in preventing exacerbation.

Indirect comparison of bronchial thermoplasty versus omalizumab for uncontrolled severe asthma.

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Eltrombopag versus Romiplostim for the Treatment of Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia in England and Wales.

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