Feasibility of Indirect Treatment Comparisons Between Niraparib Plus Abiraterone Acetate and Other First-Line Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor Treatment Regimens for Patients with BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a novel option to treat patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) is indicated for BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC. Niraparib plus AAP demonstrated safety and efficacy in the phase 3 MAGNITUDE trial (NCT03748641). In the absence of head-to-head studies comparing PARPi regimens, the feasibility of conducting indirect treatment comparisons (ITC) to inform decisions for patients with first-line BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC has been explored. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify evidence from randomized controlled trials on relevant comparators to inform the feasibility of conducting ITCs via network meta-analysis (NMA) or population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAIC). Feasibility was assessed based on network connectivity, data availability in the BRCA1/2 mutation-positive population, and degree of within- and between-study heterogeneity or bias. RESULTS: NMAs between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens (olaparib monotherapy, olaparib plus AAP, and talazoparib plus enzalutamide) were inappropriate due to the disconnected network, differences in trial populations related to effect modifiers, or imbalances within BRCA1/2 mutation-positive subgroups. The latter issue, coupled with the lack of a common comparator (except for olaparib plus AAP), also rendered anchored PAICs infeasible. Unanchored PAICs were either inappropriate due to lack of population overlap (vs. olaparib monotherapy) or were restricted by unmeasured confounders and small sample size (vs. olaparib plus AAP). PAIC versus talazoparib plus enzalutamide was not possible due to lack of published arm-level baseline characteristics and sufficient efficacy outcome data in the relevant population. CONCLUSION: The current randomized controlled trial evidence network does not permit robust comparisons between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens for patients with 1L BRCA-positive mCRPC. Decision-makers should scrutinize any ITC results in light of their limitations. Real-world evidence combined with clinical experience should inform treatment recommendations in this indication.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Recombinant Factor IX Albumin Fusion Protein Versus Recombinant Factor IX Fc Fusion Protein for Weekly Prophylactic Treatment of Hemophilia B.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic treatment of hemophilia B with recombinant factor IX (rFIX) molecules with enhanced pharmacokinetics including rIX-FP (albutrepenonacog alfa; Idelvion©) and rFIXFc (eftrenonacog alfa; Alprolix©) have commonly been used in the clinic. In the absence of head-to-head comparative trials, the aim of this study was to estimate the efficacy of rIX-FP versus rFIXFc using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: MAIC analyses leveraged individual patient data from the PROLONG-9FP trial and published summary-level data from the B-LONG trial for subjects who received weekly prophylaxis regimens. Individual patient data were used to assign weights and balance subjects from PROLONG-9FP with subjects from B-LONG on baseline disease severity, age, prior FIX regimen, and body mass index (BMI). Six efficacy outcomes were analyzed including annualized bleeding rate (ABR), annualized spontaneous bleeding rate (AsBR), annualized joint bleeding rate (AjBR), and the proportion of subjects without bleeding events (for total, spontaneous, and joint bleeding events). RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline disease severity, age, prior FIX regimen, and BMI, rIX-FP was associated with a statistically significant decrease in AsBR (rate ratio [RR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22, 0.82; P = 0.0107), and the proportion of patients without bleeding events (odds ratio [OR] 3.24; 95% CI 1.41, 7.45; P = 0.0057), spontaneous bleeding events (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.56, 7.73; P = 0.0023), and joint bleeding events (OR 2.41; 95% CI 1.10, 5.26; P = 0.0274) compared with rFIXFc. Prophylactic treatment with rIX-FP was also associated with a numerically lower ABR (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32, 1.75; P = 0.5095) and AjBR (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.37, 1.82; P = 0.6178). CONCLUSION: The MAICs demonstrated that weekly prophylaxis treatment of severe hemophilia B with rIX-FP resulted in favorable efficacy outcomes as compared to rFIXFc. These findings suggest rIX-FP may offer improved clinical benefits over rFIXFc.

HIV Prevention Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Tenofovir Alafenamide Combination Preexposure Prophylaxis Versus Placebo.

BACKGROUND: While noninferiority of tenofovir alafenamide and emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been shown, interest remains in its efficacy relative to placebo. We estimate the efficacy of TAF/FTC PrEP versus placebo for the prevention of HIV infection. METHODS: We used data from the DISCOVER and iPrEx trials to compare TAF/FTC to placebo. DISCOVER was a noninferiority trial conducted from 2016 to 2017. iPrEx was a placebo-controlled trial conducted from 2007 to 2009. Inverse probability weights were used to standardize the iPrEx participants to the distribution of demographics and risk factors in the DISCOVER trial. To check the comparison, we evaluated whether risk of HIV infection in the shared tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) arms was similar. RESULTS: Notable differences in demographics and risk factors occurred between trials. After standardization, the difference in risk of HIV infection between the TDF/FTC arms was near zero. The risk of HIV with TAF/FTC was 5.8 percentage points lower (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.0% to -9.6%) or 12.5-fold lower (95% CI, .02 to .31) than placebo standardized to the DISCOVER population. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in HIV infection with TAF/FTC versus placebo across 96 weeks of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02842086 and NCT00458393.

Unanchored Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods for Time-to-Event Outcomes Using Inverse Odds Weighting, Regression Adjustment, and Doubly Robust Methods With Either Individual Patient or Aggregate Data.

OBJECTIVES: Several methods for unanchored population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) are available. Exploring alternative adjustment methods, depending on the available individual patient data (IPD) and the aggregate data (AD) in the external study, may help minimize bias in unanchored indirect comparisons. However, methods for time-to-event outcomes are not well understood. This study provides an overview and comparison of methods using a case study to increase familiarity. A recent method is applied to marginalize conditional hazard ratios, which allows for the comparisons of methods, and a doubly robust method is proposed. METHODS: The following PAIC methods were compared through a case study in third-line small cell lung cancer, comparing nivolumab with standard of care based on a single-arm phase II trial (CheckMate 032) and real-world study (Flatiron) in terms of overall survival: IPD-IPD analyses using inverse odds weighting, regression adjustment, and a doubly robust method; IPD-AD analyses using matching-adjusted indirect comparison, simulated treatment comparison, and a doubly robust method. RESULTS: Nivolumab extended survival versus standard of care with hazard ratios ranging from 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.90) in naive comparisons (identical estimates for IPD-IPD and IPD-AD analyses) to 0.69 (95% CI 0.44-0.98) in the IPD-IPD analyses using regression adjustment. Regression-based and doubly robust estimates yielded slightly wider confidence intervals versus the propensity score-based analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed doubly robust approach for time-to-event outcomes may help to minimize bias due to model misspecification. However, all methods for unanchored PAIC rely on the strong assumption that all prognostic covariates have been included.

A Comparison of Statistical Analysis Between "Real" Patients Reported in Kaplan-Meier Curves and "Reconstructed" Patients Estimated Through the IPDfromKM Method: Analysis of Eight Trials Evaluating Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia.

Time-to-event endpoints are most widely used in oncology and, to a lesser extent, in cardiology. Typical statistical parameters employed in this context include overall survival, progression-free survival, and recurrence-free survival. The graphical presentation of the results is based on the Kaplan-Meier plot. When Kaplan-Meier curves are included in a meta-analysis, the typical methodological approach is a simplified one because the results of each trial (as well as those of the meta-analysis itself) are expressed through a 2x2 contingency; the methodological simplification is that the follow-up is left out from the analysis and, consequently, the Kaplan-Meier curves are omitted as well. The IPDfromKM method, developed in 2021, is an artificial intelligence algorithm designed to be used in these situations. According to this method, to keep the Kaplan-Meier curves in the meta-analysis, each curve is converted into a database of individual patients (which are denoted as "reconstructed" individual patients). In this way, for the purposes of the meta-analysis, the statistical methods are based on individual patients (like those of clinical trials) so that the Kaplan-Meier curves must not be excluded, and the effect of the follow-up can, therefore, be investigated. This technical report describes the IPDfromKM method in all of its operational details. To present the method, a meta-analysis investigating the effects of catheter ablation to prevent ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) has been taken as an example. The original meta-analysis, which included nine controlled trials, was published in February 2023 and adopted the simplified approach based on 2x2 contingency tables. We have reanalyzed these trials by using the IPDfromKM method. Overall, both the standard binary meta-analysis and the IPDfromKM method showed that ablation significantly reduces VT recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.820 for binary meta-analysis vs 0.728 for the IPDfromKM method). By contrast, while no heterogeneity was found by the binary method, the IPDfromKM found significant heterogeneity, which was confirmed by visual inspection of the Kaplan-Meier curves. This suggests that the results of the IPDfromKM method are more accurate because they include the effect of the follow-up on patients' outcomes. In conclusion, our reanalysis confirms the significant benefit determined by ablation, but a more pronounced degree of between-trial heterogeneity has been found. Finally, it should be stressed that, outside the field of meta-analysis, the IPDfromKM method is also applicable to carry out an indirect comparison between treatments that have never been compared in real clinical trials. In this case, reconstructed patients are analyzed by conducting a simulated comparative trial.

A methodological review of population-adjusted indirect comparisons reveals inconsistent reporting and suggests publication bias.

OBJECTIVES: Population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) were developed in the 2010s to allow for comparisons between two treatments evaluated in different trials while accounting for differences in patient characteristics if individual patient data (IPD) are available for only one trial. Such comparisons are increasingly used in market access applications when a pharmaceutical company compares its new treatment (with IPD available) to another treatment developed by a competitor (with only aggregated data available). This study aimed to describe the characteristics of these PAICs, assess their methodology, and describe the reported results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Original articles reporting the use of at least one PAIC were searched on PubMed between January 1, 2010 and April 2, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 133 publications reporting the results of 288 PAICs. Half of the articles were published on or after May 7, 2020, and 71 (53%) pertained to onco-hematology. The pharmaceutical industry was involved in 130 (98%) articles. Key methodological aspects were reported inconsistently, with only three articles adequately reporting all aspects. A total of 161 (56%) articles reported a statistically significant benefit for the treatment evaluated on IPD. Conversely, only one PAIC significantly favored the treatment evaluated on aggregated data. CONCLUSION: Although the number of published PAICs is increasing, the methodology and transparency need to be improved. Moreover, our study strongly suggests a reporting bias. This situation calls for strengthening guidelines to improve trust in PAIC results and thus their reliability in market access applications.

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

OBJECTIVES: We present an empirical comparison of relative-efficacy estimate(s) from matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) with estimates from corresponding standard anchored indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: A total of 80 comparisons were identified from 17 publications through a systematic rapid review. A standardized metric that used reported relative treatment efficacy estimates and their associated uncertainty was used to compare the methods across different treatment indications and outcome measures. RESULTS: On aggregate, MAICs presented for connected networks tended to report a more favorable relative-efficacy estimate for the treatment for which individual-level patient data were available relative to the reported indirect treatment comparison estimate. CONCLUSIONS: Although we recognize the importance of MAIC and other population adjustment methods in certain situations, we recommend that results from these analyses are interpreted with caution. Researchers and analysts should carefully consider if MAICs are appropriate where presented and whether MAICs would have added value where omitted.

Application of the IPDfromKM-Shiny Method to Compare the Efficacy of Novel Treatments Aimed at the Same Disease Condition: A Report of 14 Analyses.

In the area of evidence-based medicine, the IPDfromKM-Shiny method is an innovative method of survival analysis, midway between artificial intelligence and advanced statistics. Its main characteristic is that an original software investigates the Kaplan-Meier graphs of trials so that individual-patient data are reconstructed. These reconstructed patients represent a new form of original clinical material. The typical objective of investigations based on this method is to analyze the available evidence, especially in oncology, to perform indirect comparisons, and determine the place in therapy of individual agents. This review examined the most recent applications of the IPDfromKM-Shiny method, in which a new web-based software-published in 2021-was used. Reported here are 14 analyses, mostly focused on oncological treatments. Indirect comparisons were based on overall survival or progression free survival. Each of these analyses provided original information to compare treatments with one another and select the most appropriate depending on patient characteristics. These analyses can also be useful to assess equivalence from a regulatory viewpoint. All investigations stressed the importance of heterogeneity to better interpret the evidence generated by IPDfromKM-Shiny investigations. In conclusion, these investigations showed that the reconstruction of individual patient data through this online tool is a promising new method for analyzing trials based on survival endpoints. This new approach deserves further investigation, particularly in the area of indirect comparisons.

A comparison of low- versus standard-dose bridging alteplase in acute ischemic stroke mechanical thrombectomy using indirect methods.

Background: Whether low-dose alteplase is similar to standard-dose bridging alteplase prior to endovascular mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains uncertain. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of low- versus standard-dose bridging alteplase therapy (BT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who are eligible for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) within 4.5 h after onset. Methods: We conducted an indirect comparison of low- versus standard-dose bridging alteplase before mechanical thrombectomy in AIS of current available clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared direct mechanical thrombectomy treatment (dMT) to BT. Primary efficacy outcomes were functional independence and excellent recovery defined as a dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2 and 0-1 at 90 days. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results: We included six RCTs of 2334 AIS patients in this analysis, including one trial using low-dose bridging alteplase (n = 103) and five trials using standard-dose bridging alteplase (n = 1067) against a common comparator (dMT). Indirect comparisons of low- to standard-dose bridging alteplase yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 0.84 (95% CI 0.47-1.50) for 90-day mRS 0-2, 1.18 (95% CI 0.65-2.12) for 90-day mRS 0-1, 1.21 (95% CI 0.44-3.36) for mortality, and 1.11 (95% CI 0.39-3.14) for successful recanalization. There were no significant differences in the odds for sICH (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.32-3.41) or any ICH (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.94-3.10) between low- and standard-dose bridging alteplase. Conclusion: Indirect evidence shows that the effects of low- and standard-dose bridging alteplase are similar for key efficacy and safety outcomes. Due to the wide confidence intervals, larger randomized trials comparing low- and standard-dose alteplase bridging therapy are required.

A Comparison of Alternative Network Meta-Analysis Methods in the Presence of Nonproportional Hazards: A Case Study in First-Line Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Network meta-analysis (NMA) of time-to-event outcomes based on constant hazard ratios can result in biased findings when the proportional hazards (PHs) assumption does not hold in a subset of trials. We aimed to summarize the published non-PH NMA methods for time-to-event outcomes, demonstrate their application, and compare their results. METHODS: The following non-PH NMA methods were compared through an illustrative case study in oncology of 4 randomized controlled trials in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival: (1) 1-step or (2) 2-step multivariate NMAs based on traditional survival distributions or fractional polynomials, (3) NMAs with restricted cubic splines for baseline hazard, and (4) restricted mean survival NMA. RESULTS: For progression-free survival, the PH assumption did not hold across trials and non-PH NMA methods better reflected the relative treatment effects over time. The most flexible models (fractional polynomials and restricted cubic splines) fit better to the data than the other approaches. Estimated hazard ratios obtained with different non-PH NMA methods were similar at 5 years of follow-up but differed thereafter in the extrapolations. Although there was no strong evidence of PH violation for overall survival, non-PH NMA methods captured this uncertainty in the relative treatment effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: When the PH assumption is questionable in a subset of the randomized controlled trials, we recommend assessing alternative non-PH NMA methods to estimate relative treatment effects for time-to-event outcomes. We propose a transparent and explicit stepwise model selection process considering model fit, external constraints, and clinical validity. Given inherent uncertainty, sensitivity analyses are suggested.

Effect of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the systemic administration of corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to combine the direct and indirect evidence. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was obtained to estimate the ranking probability of the treatment agents for each outcome. The efficacy outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The safety outcome was serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 16 trials with 2992 patients comparing four treatments (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, and placebo) were identified. Direct analysis showed that corticosteroids were associated with a reduced risk of 28-day mortality compared with usual care (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CrI] 0.70-0.99). Network analysis showed that the pooled RR was 0.63 (95% CrI 0.39-0.93) for all-cause mortality at 28 days comparing methylprednisolone with usual care or placebo (surface under the cumulative ranking curve: 91%). Our analysis demonstrated that patients who received a low dose of corticosteroids (RR 0.80; 95% CrI 0.70-0.91) and a long course of treatment (RR 0.81; 95% CrI 0.71-0.91) had higher survival rates than patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Administration of corticosteroids was associated with a reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days compared with placebo or usual care. Our analysis also confirmed the mortality benefit associated with low-dose and long-term treatment with corticosteroids.

The "One-to-Many" Survival Analysis to Evaluate a New Treatment in Comparison With Therapeutic Alternatives Based on Reconstructed Patient Data: Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Standard of Care in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Objective This paper presents a preliminary experience based on the "one-to-many" approach of the Shiny method. Numerous (or "many") treatments for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma have recently been reviewed. More recently, "one" potentially innovative treatment has been made available. Our analysis was aimed at assessing the benefits of the new treatment in comparison with the alternatives developed previously. Materials and methods The Shiny method was employed to reconstruct patient-level survival data. This information allowed us to compare the Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves of five treatments previously available (i.e., pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, vinflunine, and standard chemotherapy) with the potentially innovative agent represented by enfortumab vedotin. Overall survival was evaluated for each agent. Statistical tests to assess head-to-head indirect comparisons were performed through standard survival analysis. The hazard ratio (HR) was the main parameter. Results In ranking the efficacy across these agents, enfortumab vedotin was first, followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Standard chemotherapy and vinflunine were the least effective. The remarkable survival results of enfortumab were, to some extent, influenced by the slightly better prognosis of the population enrolled in the enfortumab trial in comparison with patients enrolled in the three ICI trials. Conclusions The experience described herein shows that, when a potential innovative treatment (enfortumab vedotin) is developed in an already investigated area (metastatic urothelial cancer), the Shiny method can be applied according to the "one-to-many" approach. This allows us to quickly assess the place in therapy of the new treatment (the "one") and to evaluate whether the new treatment determines a relevant incremental benefit in comparison with previous treatments (the "many").

Novel and existing flexible survival methods for network meta-analyses.

Aim: Technical Support Document 21 discusses trial-based, flexible relative survival models. The authors generalized flexible relative survival models to the network meta-analysis (NMA) setting while accounting for different treatment-effect specifications. Methods: The authors compared the standard parametric model with mixture, mixture cure and nonmixture cure, piecewise, splines and fractional polynomial models. The optimal treatment-effect parametrization was defined in two steps. First, all models were run with treatment effects on all parameters and subsequently the optimal model was defined by removing uncertain treatment effects, for which the parameter was smaller than its standard deviation. The authors used a network in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Results: Flexible model-based NMAs impact fit and incremental mean survival and they increase corresponding uncertainty. Treatment-effect specification impacts incremental survival, reduces uncertainty and improves the fit statistic. Conclusion: Extrapolation techniques already available for individual trials can now be used for NMAs to ensure that the most plausible extrapolations are being used for health technology assessment submissions.

Are there differences between ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam in treating patients with complicated abdominal infections? Evidence from clinical trials.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) and ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) are new possibilities of antimicrobial treatment that combined a ß-lactam with a ß-lactamase inhibitor. The United States (US) and European regulatory agencies approved their clinical use in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. This study aims to know if one of the two antibiotics obtain better efficacy in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections and by specific pathogens such as P. aeruginosa or E. coli. A search of all trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science comparing a C/T or CZA based antimicrobial regimen with other treatments in patients with intraabdominal infections until August 2021 was performed. To make indirect comparisons, we used a frequentist approach using the R package netmeta.The effects have been expressed through the relative risk (RR) with its confidence interval. Considering the clinical cure and failure rates between the different trial populations (mMITT, CE, ME) and the mortality at the end of the study, we have not found significant differences between CZA and C/T. In the case of Pseudomonas, the RR of treatment failure between these two antibiotics is 1 (95% CI 0.55-1.18). In the case of E. Coli, although it seems that CZA would have a worse result than C/T, differences did not reach statistical significance (RR1.06; 95% CI 0.9-1.14). In conclusion, we have not found statistically significant differences between ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam in treating cIAI. In regards to E. Coli, our results do not reach significance, but it would be possible that C/T and meropenem had better results than CZA. Perhaps new trials would allow a better profile of the role in different types of patients or infections caused by specific microorganisms in the future.

How Assessment-Schedule Matching Limits Bias When Comparing Progression-Free Survival in Single-Arm Studies: An Application in Second-Line Urothelial Carcinoma Treatments.

OBJECTIVES: Population-adjusted comparisons of progression-free survival (PFS) from single-arm trials of cancer treatments can be derived using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs); however, results are still susceptible to bias, particularly if the trials had different tumor assessment schedules. This study aims to assess the effects of assessment-schedule matching (ASM) on the relative effectiveness on the PFS of avelumab versus approved comparator immunotherapies or chemotherapy after population matching in the second-line (2L) setting for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: The MAIC used patient-level data for avelumab from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). PFS was compared with published curves for other treatments to obtain population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). The MAIC was repeated after conducting ASM for differences in tumor assessment scheduled first at 6 weeks for avelumab and durvalumab and at 8 or 9 weeks for other treatments. RESULTS: MAIC adjustment alone altered the HR estimates up to 23%, whereas MAIC plus ASM resulted in up to 32.7% reductions from naive comparisons. Even in cases in which MAIC had little effect, ASM brought an additional change of 11.1% to 15.4%. Overall, the HR range of avelumab versus other treatments changed from 0.83 to 1.25 for naive comparisons to 0.76 to 0.99 after ASM plus MAIC, numerically favoring avelumab. CONCLUSIONS: Small variations in assessment schedules can introduce bias in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons of interval-censored time-to-event outcomes. In this study, adjusted PFS was comparable across second-line urothelial carcinoma treatment options, numerically favoring avelumab versus immunotherapies and chemotherapy agents. Correcting this bias is especially important when HRs are applied in cost-effectiveness models to transition patients between states.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Therapeutic Options in Resectable and Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison.

OBJECTIVES: FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab/P), and gemcitabine-capecitabine (gem-cap) demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic cancer (PC). It is still unclear which chemotherapy regimen is the most optimal. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review (SR) and indirect comparison to compare safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus gem-nab/P and gem-cap in PC. METHODS: An SR was conducted in several databases from inception to November 2020. RCTs investigating resectable or advanced PC were included. Primary outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS)/progression-free survival (PFS)/relapse-free survival (RFS), and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were pooled using a random effects model. Indirect comparisons were done to compare FOLFIRINOX versus gem-cap and gem-nab/P. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified involving 6,564 patients. Indirect comparisons showed FOLFIRINOX had significantly better OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-0.99]; advanced: HR 0.71 [0.60-0.85]) and RFS/DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.67 [0.55-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.65 [0.57-0.74]) compared to gem-cap as well as OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-1.00]; advanced: HR 0.73 [0.54-0.98]) and DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.66 [0.53-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) compared to gem-nab/P. FOLFIRINOX increased grade 3/4 AE risk compared to gem-cap and gem-nab/P. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRINOX is associated with significant survival benefits compared to gem-nab/P and gem-cap. However, it is important to consider the increased grade 3/4 AE risk associated with FOLFIRINOX.

A method for assessing robustness of the results of a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unidentifiable consistency assumption.

BACKGROUND: In a star-shaped network, pairwise comparisons link treatments with a reference treatment (often placebo or standard care), but not with each other. Thus, comparisons between non-reference treatments rely on indirect evidence, and are based on the unidentifiable consistency assumption, limiting the reliability of the results. We suggest a method of performing a sensitivity analysis through data imputation to assess the robustness of results with an unknown degree of inconsistency. METHODS: The method involves imputation of data for randomized controlled trials comparing non-reference treatments, to produce a complete network. The imputed data simulate a situation that would allow mixed treatment comparison, with a statistically acceptable extent of inconsistency. By comparing the agreement between the results obtained from the original star-shaped network meta-analysis and the results after incorporating the imputed data, the robustness of the results of the original star-shaped network meta-analysis can be quantified and assessed. To illustrate this method, we applied it to two real datasets and some simulated datasets. RESULTS: Applying the method to the star-shaped network formed by discarding all comparisons between non-reference treatments from a real complete network, 33% of the results from the analysis incorporating imputed data under acceptable inconsistency indicated that the treatment ranking would be different from the ranking obtained from the star-shaped network. Through a simulation study, we demonstrated the sensitivity of the results after data imputation for a star-shaped network with different levels of within- and between-study variability. An extended usability of the method was also demonstrated by another example where some head-to-head comparisons were incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: Our method will serve as a practical technique to assess the reliability of results from a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unverifiable consistency assumption.

The Kilim plot: A tool for visualizing network meta-analysis results for multiple outcomes.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) can be used to compare multiple competing treatments for the same disease. In practice, usually a range of outcomes is of interest. As the number of outcomes increases, summarizing results from multiple NMAs becomes a nontrivial task, especially for larger networks. Moreover, NMAs provide results in terms of relative effect measures that can be difficult to interpret and apply in every-day clinical practice, such as the odds ratios. In this article, we aim to facilitate the clinical decision-making process by proposing a new graphical tool, the Kilim plot, for presenting results from NMA on multiple outcomes. Our plot compactly summarizes results on all treatments and all outcomes; it provides information regarding the strength of the statistical evidence of treatment effects, while it illustrates absolute, rather than relative, effects of interventions. Moreover, it can be easily modified to include considerations regarding clinically important effects. To showcase our method, we use data from a network of studies in antidepressants. All analyses are performed in R and we provide the source code needed to produce the Kilim plot, as well as an interactive web application.

Meta-analysis and Indirect Comparisons: on Methods, Paradigms, and Biologic Treatments for Psoriasis. / Metaanálisis y comparaciones indirectas. Métodos y paradigma: tratamiento biológico de la psoriasis.

Meta-analysis offers a way to assess the clinical efficacy of a treatment by combining the results of randomized clinical trials while maintaining randomization; the combined effects, with their confidence intervals, can be represented with a forest plot. The efficacy of several different treatment options can be assessed with either direct or indirect comparisons. Indirect comparisons may be placebo-anchored as well as network meta-analyses (NMA) that use either a frequentist or Bayesian approach, depending on the statistical framework and the definition of probability selected. Indirect comparisons may also adjust for covariates or utilize individual participant data. Bayesian NMA are able to establish a rank order of efficacy based on probabilities or credibility intervals, which can be described by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve(SUCRA). Statistical superiority is demonstrated by pairwise comparisons, which are generally presented in league tables. This review provides clinical practitioners with detailed descriptions of these methods, drawing on examples from recently published NMA that rank the relative efficacy of biologic treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. According to NMA findings, the four most effective treatments in both the short term (10-16 weeks) and the long term (approximately one year) are, in rank order, risankizumab (first in all studies that include it), brodalumab, guselkumab, and ixekizumab. However, the between-treatment differences are not always significant.

Comparative Efficacy of Combined Radiotherapy, Systemic Therapy, and Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Background: Recent randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of different combinations of systemic and local treatment approaches for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We compared the efficacy of these combined regimens in order to identify the optimal therapy for specific patient subgroups. Methods: The treatments were abiraterone (ABI), apalutamide (APA), docetaxel (DOC), enzalutamide (ENZ), and radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Five electronic databases were searched up to May 7, 2020 for relevant trials. The risk of bias in the included trials was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined for the included trials and indirect comparisons were performed using the R software. Results: In total, 10 randomized, controlled trials with 11,194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ADT + RT was superior to ADT monotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85-1.1) and conferred a survival benefit in a subgroup of low-volume patients (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.87). Combined systemic treatments were significantly superior to ADT monotherapy in comparisons of survival and prostate-specific antigen response, including in the high-volume subgroup; meanwhile, in the low-volume subgroup only ADT + ENZ (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69) showed a significant clinical benefit. In the Gleason score <8 subgroup, all combined systemic treatments were superior to ADT monotherapy, but the results were only significant for ADT + APA (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.95) and ADT + DOC (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92). In the Gleason score ≥8 subgroup, ADT monotherapy was inferior (albeit not significantly) to combined treatments. In a ranking of performed comparisons, ADT + ENZ was the optimal regimen, although this was non-significant. Combined therapies also demonstrated superiority in quality-of-life indicators such as time to skeletal events and pain progression. Conclusion: ADT + radiotherapy led to superior outcomes in mHSPC patients with low-volume disease. While all combined systemic regimens confer a survival advantage over ADT monotherapy, the optimal treatment approach for certain mHSPC patient subgroups remains to be determined.