Predicting Treatment Effects from Surrogate Endpoints in Historical Trials in First-Line Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Surrogate endpoints are becoming increasingly important in health technology assessment, where decisions are based on complex cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) that require numerous input parameters. Daniels and Hughes Surrogate Model was used to predict missing effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line treatments in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to assess the comparative efficacy of these treatments. Databases were searched (inception to October 2022) using Ovid®. Several grey literature searches were also conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021283512). Available trial data for radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were used to predict the unreported effect of rPFS or OS for relevant comparator treatments. Bayesian NMAs were conducted using observed and predicted treatment effects. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best (p-best) were obtained. Twenty-five RCTs met the eligibility criteria and of these, 8 reported jointly rPFS and OS; while rPFS was predicted for 12 RCTs and 10 comparators, and OS was predicted for 5 RCTs and 6 comparators. A nonstandard dose of docetaxel (docetaxel 50 mg/m2 every 2 weeks) had the highest probability of being the most effective for rPFS (p-best: 59%) and OS (p-best: 48%), followed by talazoparib plus enzalutamide (13% and 19%, respectively). Advanced surrogate modelling techniques allowed obtaining relevant parameter and indirect estimates of previously unavailable data and may be used to populate future CEMs requiring rPFS and OS in first-line mCRPC.

A Targeted Review of Worldwide Indirect Treatment Comparison 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 (ie, 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 5 years and commonly cited the absence of direct comparative studies as primary justification for using ITCs. Most jurisdictions favored population-adjusted or anchored ITC techniques opposed to naive 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 used depends on the data sources, available evidence, and magnitude of benefit/uncertainty.

Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in HR+/HER2- second-line LABC/mBC after first-line treatment with CDK4/6i.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy (ET) are currently recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines as the first-line (1 L) treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC). Although there are many treatment options, there is no clear standard of care for patients following 1 L CDK4/6i. Understanding the real-world effectiveness of subsequent therapies may help to identify an unmet need in this patient population. This systematic literature review qualitatively synthesized effectiveness and safety outcomes for treatments received in the real-world setting after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy in patients with HR+/ HER2- LABC/mBC. METHODS: MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane were searched using the Ovid® platform for real-world evidence studies published between 2015 and 2022. Grey literature was searched to identify relevant conference abstracts published from 2019 to 2022. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383914). Data were qualitatively synthesized and weighted average median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was calculated for NCCN/ESMO-recommended post-1 L CDK4/6i treatment regimens. RESULTS: Twenty records (9 full-text articles and 11 conference abstracts) encompassing 18 unique studies met the eligibility criteria and reported outcomes for second-line (2 L) treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i; no studies reported disaggregated outcomes in the third-line setting or beyond. Sixteen studies included NCCN/ESMO guideline-recommended treatments with the majority evaluating endocrine-based therapy; five studies on single-agent ET, six studies on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) ± ET, and three studies with a mix of ET and/or mTORi. Chemotherapy outcomes were reported in 11 studies. The most assessed outcome was median rwPFS; the weighted average median rwPFS was calculated as 3.9 months (3.3-6.0 months) for single-agent ET, 3.6 months (2.5-4.9 months) for mTORi ± ET, 3.7 months for a mix of ET and/or mTORi (3.0-4.0 months), and 6.1 months (3.7-9.7 months) for chemotherapy. Very few studies reported other effectiveness outcomes and only two studies reported safety outcomes. Most studies had heterogeneity in patient- and disease-related characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The real-world effectiveness of current 2 L treatments post-1 L CDK4/6i are suboptimal, highlighting an unmet need for this patient population.

Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with ROS1 gene fusion: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib was approved to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) gene fusion in 2016. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify real-world evidence (RWE) studies and estimated the efficacy and safety of crizotinib using meta-analyses (MA) for objective response rate (ORR), real-world progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from January 2016 to March 2023 using Ovid® for published single-arm or comparative RWE studies evaluating patients (N ≥ 20) receiving crizotinib monotherapy for aNSCLC with ROS1 gene fusion. Pooled estimates for ORR and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were derived using the metafor package in R while pooled estimates for median real-world PFS (rwPFS) and OS were derived using reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary analysis included all studies regardless of crizotinib line of therapy; a subgroup analysis (SA) was conducted using studies evaluating patients receiving first-line crizotinib. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were considered feasible for MA. For the primary analysis, the pooled ORR (N = 9 studies) was 70.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.0, 81.3), median rwPFS was 14.5 months (N = 11 studies), and OS was 40.2 months (N = 9 studies). In the SA, the pooled ORR (N = 4 studies) was 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.1, 85.2) and the median rwPFS (N = 4 studies) and OS (N = 2 studies) were 18.1 and 60 months, respectively. All MAs were associated with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 25 %). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 18.7 % of patients (pooled estimate). CONCLUSION: The results from this study are consistent with clinical trial data and, taken collectively, supports crizotinib as a safe and effective treatment across different lines of therapy in patients with ROS1 aNSCLC in the real-world setting.

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.

The impact of race on survival in metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men worldwide. While racial and ethnic differences exist in incidence and mortality, increasing data suggest outcomes by race among men with newly diagnosed PC are similar. However, outcomes among races beyond Black/White have been poorly studied. Moreover, whether outcomes differ by race among men who all have metastatic PC (mPC) is unclear. This systematic literature review (SLR) provides a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence relating race to survival in mPC. METHODS: An SLR was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane Library using the Ovid® interface were searched for real-world studies published from January 2012 to July 2022 investigating the impact of race on overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in patients with mPC. A supplemental search of key congresses was also conducted. Studies were appraised for risk of bias. RESULTS: Of 3228 unique records identified, 62 records (47 full-text and 15 conference abstracts), corresponding to 54 unique studies (51 United States and 3 ex-United States) reporting on race and survival were included. While most studies showed no difference between Black vs White patients for OS (n = 21/27) or PCSM (n = 8/9), most showed that Black patients demonstrated improved OS on certain mPC treatments (n = 7/10). Most studies found no survival difference between White patients and Hispanic (OS: n = 6/8; PCSM: n = 5/6) or American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) (OS: n = 2/3; PCSM: n = 5/5). Most studies found Asian patients had improved OS (n = 3/4) and PCSM (n = 6/6) vs White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies found Black, Hispanic, and AI/AN patients with mPC had similar survival as White patients, while Black patients on certain therapies and Asian patients showed improved survival. Future studies are needed to understand what aspects of race including social determinants of health are driving these findings.

Comparative efficacy of therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Aim: To assess the relative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) including newer therapies (ozanimod, ponesimod, ublituximab) using network meta-analysis (NMA). Materials & methods: Bayesian NMAs for annualised relapse rate (ARR) and time to 3-month and 6-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP and 6mCDP) were conducted. Results: For each outcome, the three most efficacious treatments versus placebo were monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies: alemtuzumab, ofatumumab, and ublituximab for ARR; alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, and ofatumumab for 3mCDP; and alemtuzumab, natalizumab, and either ocrelizumab or ofatumumab (depending on the CDP definition used for included ofatumumab trials) for 6mCDP. Conclusion: The most efficacious DMTs for RMS were mAb therapies. Of the newer therapies, only ublituximab ranked among the three most efficacious treatments (for ARR).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Risk of recurrence among patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative, early breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess breast cancer (BC) outcomes among patients with early-stage hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC, receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies were identified using Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. Clinical and methodological similarities including alignment of outcome definitions with standardized definitions for efficacy endpoints criteria were assessed to evaluate feasibility of conducting a meta-analysis. Where feasible, 5-year probabilities of BC recurrence or death were estimated using a Bayesian hierarchical arm-based model. RESULTS: Of 21 included studies, 8 RCTs and 4 RWE studies reported outcome data of interest. There was heterogeneity in outcome reporting, as well as variation in recurrence risk amongst studies with aligned reporting. Of the 12 studies, 10 were considered for inclusion in a meta-analysis of BC recurrence or death. Only a subgroup analysis of node-positive patients (3 studies; n = 7307) was deemed feasible. The 5-year probability of BC recurrence or death was 17.2% (95% credible interval: 14.6%-20.3%). CONCLUSION: Although studies reporting recurrence outcomes were limited, there remains a high risk of BC recurrence, especially among node-positive patients. Approximately 1 in 6 women with node-positive HR+/HER2- early-stage BC receiving endocrine therapy experience recurrence or death within 5-years of initiating treatment, suggesting a need for novel treatments for this population.

Efficacy classification of modern therapies in multiple sclerosis.

Background: The Association of British Neurologists (ABN) 2015 guidelines suggested classifying multiple sclerosis therapies according to their average relapse reduction. We sought to classify newer therapies (cladribine, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, ozanimod) based on these guidelines. Materials & methods: Therapies were classified by using direct comparative trial results as per ABN guidelines and generating classification probabilities for each therapy based on comparisons versus placebo in a network meta-analysis for annualized relapse rate. Results: For both approaches, cladribine and ofatumumab were classified as high efficacy. Ocrelizumab and ozanimod (1.0 mg) were classified as moderate or high efficacy depending on the approach used. Conclusion: Cladribine and ofatumumab have an efficacy comparable with therapies classified in the ABN guidelines as high efficacy.

Comparison of ofatumumab and other disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of ofatumumab to other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Materials & methods: A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative effect of ofatumumab on annualized relapse rate and confirmed disability progression at 3 months and 6 months. Results: For each outcome, ofatumumab was as effective as other highly efficacious monoclonal antibody DMTs (i.e., alemtuzumab, natalizumab and ocrelizumab). Conclusion: Ofatumumab offers beneficial outcomes for RMS by reducing relapse and disability progression risk.

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.

The impact of clinical heterogeneity on conducting network meta-analyses in transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy.

Objective: The comparative safety and efficacy of tafamidis, patisiran and inotersen treatments for transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy (ATTR-PN) has not been evaluated in clinical trials. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, indirect treatment comparisons such as network meta-analyses (NMAs) can be performed to evaluate relative effects of treatments. This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting an NMA of available therapies for ATTR-PN patients.Methods: Pivotal trials for three approved ATTR-PN treatments, tafamidis (Fx-005), patisiran (APOLLO) and inotersen (NEURO-TTR), were compared in terms of study design, baseline population characteristics, outcome definitions and baseline risk. These assessments of heterogeneity informed the decision to perform Bayesian NMAs.Results: Despite similar study designs, clear differences in eligibility criteria between trials were accompanied by imbalances in baseline population characteristics considered to be plausible effect modifiers, such as disease stage and previous treatment. Of the outcomes assessed, only quality of life and adverse events were similarly reported in all trials. Neuropathy outcomes were not evaluated consistently between trials.Conclusions: An NMA of ATTR-PN treatments was not feasible, given the observed cross-trial heterogeneity. This decision highlights the importance of careful consideration for clinical heterogeneity that may threaten the validity of indirect comparisons.