Comparative Safety of Pulsed Field Ablation and Cryoballoon Ablation Technologies for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Critical Literature Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is a standard catheter ablation technology with demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF); however, it can be associated with major adverse events, including phrenic nerve paralysis. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, minimally thermal technology with comparable effectiveness and low safety risk. This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of PFA and CBA through critical analyses of the literature and indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE database and the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. Registered clinical trials and/or Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption (FDA IDE) studies evaluating PFA or CBA in adult patients with drug-refractory PAF between January 2008 and March 2023 were selected. Comparative safety between PFA and CBA was assessed for major and prespecified adverse events. Indirect comparisons were conducted using the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events and confirmed with single-arm meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Data were extracted from three PFA publications including a total of 497 patients and six CBA studies including a total of 1113 patients. The analysis revealed that PFA was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse events {risk difference - 4.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) - 5.8, - 2.8]; risk ratio 0.16 [95% CI 0.07, 0.45]} and prespecified adverse events [risk difference - 2.5% (95% CI - 4.4, - 0.5); risk ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.31, 0.96)]. Meta-analyses confirmed the lower rate of major adverse events for PFA [0.4% (95% CI 0.0, 1.3)] vs. CBA [5.6% (95% CI 2.6, 8.6)] and prespecified adverse events for PFA [2.7% (95% CI 1.2, 4.1)] vs. CBA [5.8% (95% CI 2.7, 9.0)]. Sensitivity analyses exploring heterogeneity across studies confirmed robustness of the main analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study show that PFA has a more favorable safety profile than CBA, with significantly lower risks of major and prespecified adverse events. These indirect comparisons help contextualize the safety of PFA compared to CBA for the treatment of drug-refractory PAF in the absence of head-to-head studies.

Comparative efficacy of ofatumumab versus oral therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients using propensity score analyses and simulated treatment comparisons.

Background: Evidence from network meta-analyses (NMAs) and real-world propensity score (PS) analyses suggest monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer a therapeutic advantage over currently available oral therapies and, therefore, warrant consideration as a distinct group of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). This is counter to the current perception of these therapies by some stakeholders, including payers. Objectives: A multifaceted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) approach was undertaken to clarify the relative efficacy of mAbs and oral therapies. Design: Two ITC methods that use individual patient data (IPD) to adjust for between-trial differences, PS analyses and simulated treatment comparisons (STCs), were used to compare the mAb ofatumumab versus the oral therapies cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod. Data sources and methods: As IPD were available for trials of ofatumumab and fingolimod, PS analyses were conducted. Given summary-level data were available for cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod trials, STCs were conducted between ofatumumab and each of these oral therapies. Three efficacy outcomes were compared: annualized relapse rate (ARR), 3-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP), and 6-month CDP (6mCDP). Results: The PS analyses demonstrated ofatumumab was statistically superior to fingolimod for ARR and time to 3mCDP but not time to 6mCDP. In STCs, ofatumumab was statistically superior in reducing ARR and decreasing the proportion of patients with 3mCDP compared with cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod and in decreasing the proportion with 6mCP compared with fingolimod and ozanimod. These findings were largely consistent with recently published NMAs that identified mAb therapies as the most efficacious DMTs for RMS. Conclusion: Complementary ITC methods showed ofatumumab was superior to cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod in lowering relapse rates and delaying disability progression among patients with RMS. Our study supports the therapeutic superiority of mAbs over currently available oral DMTs for RMS and the delineation of mAbs as high-efficacy therapies.

Updated results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study used the latest available data cuts from the CARTITUDE-1 and KarMMa clinical trials to update previously published matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) assessing the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the FDA-approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300 to 450 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed). METHODS: MAICs were performed with the latest available individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa). The analyses included treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was assessed for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.65 [95% CI: 2.51, 12.69; p < .0001]; RR: 2.23), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.88; p = .0152]), PFS, (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.24, 0.62; p < .0001]), and OS (HR: 0.43 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.88; p = .0200]) compared with ide-cel. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes over longer follow-up and highlight its therapeutic potential in triple-class exposed RRMM patients.

Palbociclib versus abemaciclib in HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: an indirect comparison of patient-reported end points.

Aim: To assess the relative impact of palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL) and abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABEM + FUL) on patient-reported outcomes in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Patients & methods: Anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted using individual patient data from PALOMA-3 (PAL + FUL) and summary-level data from MONARCH-2 (ABEM + FUL). Outcomes included the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its breast cancer-specific module (QLQ-BR23). Results: Significantly different changes from baseline favoring PAL + FUL compared with ABEM + FUL were observed in global quality of life (6.95 [95% CI: 2.19-11.71]; p = 0.004) and several functional/symptom scales, including emotional functioning, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea and systemic therapy side effects. Conclusion: PAL + FUL was associated with more favorable patient-reported outcomes than ABEM + FUL in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Simulated treatment comparison of efficacy outcomes for ofatumumab in ASCLEPIOS I/II versus ocrelizumab in OPERA I/II for the treatment of patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ofatumumab is a subcutaneously administered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (MoAb) therapy that has been evaluated in two identically designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ASCLEPIOS I (NCT02792218) and ASCLEPIOS II (NCT02792231), in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Ocrelizumab is another anti-CD20 MoAb therapy, administered intravenously, that has been evaluated in two identically designed RCTs, OPERA I (NCT01247324) and OPERA II (NCT01412333) in RMS. Given the absence of published RCTs with head-to-head comparisons between these MoAbs, this study assessed the indirect comparative efficacy of ofatumumab and ocrelizumab. METHODS: Given the availability of individual patient data for ASCLEPIOS I/II and summary-level data for OPERA I/II, simulated treatment comparisons were used to assess the comparative efficacy of ofatumumab versus ocrelizumab while adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics between trials. Comparative efficacy was estimated for the proportion of patients with 3- and 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) and for annualized relapse rate (ARR). Exploratory analyses were conducted for the outcome of no evidence of disease activity based on three parameters (NEDA-3) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes (proportion of patients with gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions and brain volume change). RESULTS: Although comparative results were not significant for 3-month CDP (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-1.42]) or 6-month CDP (HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.47-1.49]), ofatumumab showed a significant improvement in ARR (rate ratio: 0.60 [95% CI: 0.43-0.84]) compared with ocrelizumab. Significantly favorable results were also associated with ofatumumab for NEDA-3 and MRI outcomes. CONCLUSION: Ofatumumab was associated with more favorable efficacy results compared with ocrelizumab for clinical, NEDA-3, and MRI outcomes.

Meta-analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus physician's choice therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Objective: In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) between ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; in CARTITUDE-1) and treatments used in real-world clinical practice (physician's choice of treatment [PCT]), were previously conducted. We conducted multiple meta-analyses using available ITC data to consolidate the effectiveness of cilta-cel versus PCT for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).Methods: Five ITCs were assessed for similarity to ensure robust comparisons using meta-analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall response rate (ORR). A robust variance estimator was used to account for the use of CARTITUDE-1 in each pairwise ITC. Analyses were conducted in both treated and enrolled populations of CARTITUDE-1.Results: Four ITCs were combined for evaluation of OS. Results were statistically significantly in favor of cilta-cel versus PCT in treated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.26). Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of PFS and TTNT. Cilta-cel reduced the risk of progression and receiving a subsequent treatment by 80% (HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.70]) and 83% (HR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.26]), respectively. Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of ORR. Cilta-cel increased the odds of achieving an overall response by 86-times versus PCT in treated patients. Findings were consistent in the enrolled populations and across sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Evaluating multiple indirect comparisons, cilta-cel demonstrated a significantly superior advantage over PCT, highlighting its effectiveness as a therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

Indirect comparisons of siponimod with fingolimod and ofatumumab in multiple sclerosis: assessing the feasibility of propensity score matching analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Head-to-head trials comparing siponimod with fingolimod or ofatumumab in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are lacking. Instead, the comparative efficacy of siponimod can be derived from indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). We assessed the suitability of ITCs leveraging individual patient data from relevant phase III trials across different MS phenotypes. METHODS: One siponimod trial in patients with secondary progressive MS (SPMS), four fingolimod trials (three in relapsing-remitting MS [RRMS], and one in primary progressive MS [PPMS]), and two ofatumumab trials in relapsing MS (RMS) were considered. The suitability of ITCs was evaluated based on trial design, patient eligibility criteria, baseline patient characteristics, placebo response, and outcome definitions for each trial. Analyses deemed feasible were conducted using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: An ITC between siponimod in SPMS and either fingolimod in RRMS or ofatumumab in RMS was not feasible because of insufficient overlap in key patient characteristics (e.g. disability level and relapse history) and differences in placebo response. However, a comparison between siponimod in SPMS and fingolimod in PPMS was feasible because of sufficient overlap in eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics. One-to-one PSM demonstrated siponimod was favored relative to fingolimod for time to 6- and 3-month confirmed disability progression though not significantly different (hazard ratio 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.48-1.20; p-value = .240] and hazard ratio 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.52-1.22; p-value = .300], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: For trials in MS, clinical phenotype is an important determinant of ITC feasibility. An ITC between siponimod in SPMS and either fingolimod in RRMS or ofatumumab in RMS was not feasible. The only feasible comparison was between siponimod in SPMS and fingolimod in PPMS.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of palbociclib versus ribociclib and abemaciclib in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Aim: Palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB) and abemaciclib (ABM), in combination with fulvestrant (FUL), are approved for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This study aims to determine relative efficacy of PAL+FUL versus RIB+FUL and ABM+FUL using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. Patients & methods: Anchored matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons were conducted using individual patient data from PALOMA-3 and published summary-level data from MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: OS was similar for PAL+FUL versus ABM+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.54-1.40) and RIB+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.48-1.63). Conclusion: Adjusting for cross-trial differences suggests similar OS between treatments, underscoring the importance of accounting for these differences when indirectly comparing treatments.

Lay abstract Palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB) and abemaciclib (ABM) are used with fulvestrant to treat hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This study aims to use data from clinical trials to compare how long patients live after starting treatment with PAL versus RIB and ABM. Since patients who enroll in different trials may have different characteristics, it is important to adjust for these differences for a more accurate comparison. Adjusting for these differences showed that patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treated with PAL lived for a similar length of time compared with those treated with RIB or ABM.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300-460 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed) using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: MAICs were performed with individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1; NCT03548207) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa; NCT03361748). Treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa were included in the analyses. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was estimated for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.49 [95% CI: 2.47, 12.21; p < .0001]; RR: 2.21), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.29, 0.87; p = .0137]), and PFS (HR: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.62; p = .0002]) when compared with ide-cel. For OS, the results were in favor of cilta-cel and clinically meaningful but with a CI overlapping one (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.29, 1.05; p = .0702]). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes, highlighting its therapeutic potential in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

The importance of considering differences in study and patient characteristics before undertaking indirect treatment comparisons: a case study of siponimod for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.

Background: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) provide valuable evidence on comparative efficacy where head-to-head clinical trials do not exist; however, differences in patient populations may introduce bias. Therefore, it is essential to assess between-trial heterogeneity to determine the suitability of synthesizing ITC results. We provide an illustrative case study in multiple sclerosis (MS) where we assess the feasibility of conducting ITCs between siponimod and interferon beta-1b (IFN ß-1b) and between siponimod and ocrelizumab.Methods: We assessed the feasibility of conducting ITCs using standard unadjusted methods (e.g. Bucher or network meta-analysis [NMA]) as well as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) using individual patient data (IPD) from the siponimod (EXPAND) trial, based on guidance from NICE. Time to confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 or 6 months was assessed.Results: Bucher ITCs and NMAs, which rely on summary-level data, were not able to account for important cross-trial differences. Comparisons between siponimod and IFN ß-1b were feasible using MAIC; the HRs (95% CI) for CDP-6 and CDP-3 were 0.55 (0.33-0.91) and 0.82 (0.42-1.63), respectively. ITCs were not feasible between siponimod and ocrelizumab because study designs and patient populations were too dissimilar to conduct a reliable ITC.Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of conducting a detailed feasibility assessment before undertaking ITCs to illuminate when excessive between-trial heterogeneity would cause biased results. MAIC was performed for siponimod and IFN ß-1b in the absence of a head-to-head trial and was considered a more valid approach than a traditional ITC to examine comparative effectiveness.

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of siponimod and other disease modifying treatments in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.

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