Evaluación de los comparadores empleados en los estudios pivotales de nuevos medicamentos e indicaciones / Assessment of comparators used in pivotal studies of new medicines and indications

Objetivo: En algunos casos, los estudios pivotales para aprobar nuevos medicamentos no emplean el comparador más adecuado. El objetivo es cuantificar este problema analizando los Informes de Posicionamiento Terapéutico (IPT) publicados por el Ministerio de Sanidad español.Métodos: El comparador se clasificó en seis categorías según la adecuación del tratamiento, es decir, si coincidía con el estándar de tratamiento al ser autorizado: A-“inicialmente adecuado”, B-“sin comparador por causa ética”, C-“sin comparador excluyendo los clasificados en B”, D-“inadecuado” y E-“parcialmente subóptimo” (cuando era estándar solo para parte de los pacientes).La variable principal fue la proporción de nuevos fármacos/indicaciones con comparación suficiente (categorías A, B y C) o deficiente (el resto). La información sobre comparadores y tratamiento estándar se extrajo del IPT. Resultados: Se analizaron aleatoriamente 186 IPT con nuevos medicamentos/indicaciones, publicados entre 2013 y 2022. La comparación se consideró suficiente en un 73,7% (IC95 66,9-79,5) de los casos. El 26,3% restante (IC95 20,5-33,1) presentaba comparaciones deficientes en el ensayo pivotal, ya fuera por comparador inadecuado (11,3%), parcialmente subóptimo (5,4%) o ausencia de un estudio comparativo (9,7%). No hubo diferencias en relación con el año de aprobación.Conclusiones: Aproximadamente uno de cada cuatro nuevos medicamentos o indicaciones carece de una comparación suficiente en el momento de empezar a ser utilizado en la práctica clínica. La proporción no mejora a lo largo de los últimos 10 años. Las agencias reguladoras deben ser más exigentes en la selección del comparador para los ensayos clínicos pivotales, por cuestiones éticas y sanitarias. (AU)

Objective: Pivotal studies to approve new medicines often do not use the most appropriate comparator. The objective is to quantify this problem by analysing the Therapeutic Positioning Reports (IPT for its acronym in Spanish) published by the Spanish Health Ministry.Methods: The comparator was classified into six categories, based on the appropriateness of the treatment, i.e. whether it matched the standard of treatment when authorised: A-«initially adequate» (at the start of the study), B-«no comparator for ethical reasons», C-«no comparator -excluding B-«, D-«inadequate» and E-«partially suboptimal» (when it was standard for part of the included patients but not for all of them).The primary endpoint was the proportion of new drugs/indications with sufficient (categories A, B and C) or poor comparator (the rest). Information on comparators and standard treatment was extracted from the IPT. Results: We randomly analysed 186 IPTs with new drugs or indications, published between 2013 and March 2022. Comparability was assessed as sufficient in 73.7% (95%CI 66.9-79.5) of cases. The remaining 26.3% (95%CI 20.5-33.1) had poor comparisons in the pivotal trial, either due to inadequate comparator (11.3%), partially suboptimal (5.4%) or absence of a comparative study excluding ethical justification (9.7%). Conclusions: Approximately one in four new medicines or indications lacks sufficient comparability at the time of entry into clinical practice. The proportion has not improved over the last 10 years. Regulatory agencies need to be more stringent in comparator selection for pivotal clinical trials, for ethical and health reasons. (AU)

Expresiones y criterios mejorables en la redacción de informes de evaluación y posicionamiento terapéutico / Expressions and criteria that could be improved in the writing of reports for drug evaluation and therapeutic positioning

En la revisión de borradores de informes para evaluación y posicionamiento de nuevos fármacos en un entorno multidisciplinar, se observan determinados errores de expresión o criterio que se repiten con frecuencia. Principalmente, están relacionados con la consideración de “diferencias” o tendencias no significativas, abuso de la reducción relativa del riesgo, errores en la valoración de resultados por subgrupos sin calcular la interacción estadística, confusiones en la interpretación de las comparaciones indirectas, sobrevaloración de la relevancia clínica con variables subclínicas y afirmaciones sesgadas en el apartado de seguridad, entre otros. También se observa a menudo ambigüedad o inhibición en el posicionamiento, especialmente en situaciones de precariedad en la evidencia disponible. El presente trabajo expone de forma sintética tales errores, aclara algunos términos comunes y propone expresiones o criterios alternativos que se consideran preferibles, con el fin de ofrecer una evaluación para la toma de decisiones en beneficio de los pacientes. (AU)

In the review of reports for evaluation and positioning of new drugs in a multidisciplinary setting, some usual errors of expression or criteria are observed. Most of them are related to the consideration of «differences» or non-significant trends, abuse of the relative risk reduction, errors in the assessment of results by subgroups without calculating the statistical interaction, misinterpretation of indirect comparisons, excess in the assessment of clinical relevance with subclinical variables and biased statements in the safety section, among others. Ambiguity or inhibition in positioning is also often observed, especially in situations of precariousness in the available evidence. This work summarizes such errors, clarifies some common terms and proposes alternative expressions or criteria that are considered preferable, in order to offer evaluations for decision-making focused on the benefit of patients. (AU)

New graphic AUC-based method to estimate overall survival benefit: pomalidomide reanalysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Difference in median survival is an erratic measure and sometimes does not provide a good assessment of survival benefit. The aim of this study was to reanalyse the overall survival benefit of pomalidomide from pivotal clinical trial using a new area under curve (AUC)-based method. COMMENT: In the pivotal trial, pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone showed a significant survival benefit over high-dose dexamethasone, with a difference between medians of 4.6 months. The new AUC method applied to the survival curves, obtained an overall survival benefit of 2.6 months for the pomalidomide treatment. This average difference in OS was calculated for the 61.5% of patients for whom the time to event is reliable enough. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This 2-month differential would have major clinical and pharmacoeconomic implications, on both cost-effectiveness studies and on the willingness of the healthcare systems to pay for this treatment.

Direct and indirect comparison of the efficacy and safety of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and golimumab in psoriatic arthritis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Psoriatic arthritis is an autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation of the skin and joints. Anti-TNF drugs reduce the severity of the disease in the long term. This study compares the efficacy and safety of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and golimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: Direct comparison was based on a literature search of drug comparison studies, whereas indirect treatment comparison was based on phase III clinical trials with biological agents, involving similar populations and durations, and with the same outcome. ACR50 was taken as primary outcome for comparison, whereas ACR20 and ACR70 were used as secondary outcomes. Indirect comparisons were made using infliximab as the reference drug and the Bucher method. In calculating δ (the maximum acceptable difference as a clinical criterion of equivalence), use was made of half of the absolute risk reduction obtained in the meta-analysis of the clinical trials included in the indirect comparison (ARR 32%; δ: 16%). The four anti-TNF drugs were also compared in relation to the secondary outcomes and adverse effects. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Reported direct and indirect comparisons of the four drugs did not include golimumab, and did not yield conclusive results. Four clinical trials - one for each drug studied - were identified. The estimated differences for the primary outcome, ACR50, between infliximab and the other drugs were adalimumab (ARR 4%, 95% CI -9·5 to 17·5), etanercept (ARR 4%, 95% CI -10·5 to 18·5) and golimumab (ARR 9%, 95% CI -5·4 to 23·4). Likewise, there were no relevant differences between the drugs in relation to the secondary efficacy outcomes, except for etanercept, which was less effective in ACR70 response. For adverse reactions, there were also no significant differences except for injection site, reactions which were more frequent with etanercept, with a mean difference of 26% relative to infliximab. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in ACR50 responses to the four drugs after 24 weeks. Injection-site reactions were more common with etanercept, but this was insufficient to invalidate the inference that clinically the four drugs can be regarded as clinically equivalent for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.