RESUMO
Background: Hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) are oral alternatives to current standard-of-care treatments for anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted network meta-analyses to indirectly compare clinical outcomes for three HIF-PHIs in dialysis and non-dialysis populations with anaemia in CKD. Methods: The evidence base comprised phase III, randomised, controlled trials evaluating daprodustat, roxadustat, or vadadustat. Three outcomes were evaluated: efficacy [change from baseline in haemoglobin (Hgb)], cardiovascular safety [time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)] and quality of life [change from baseline in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Vitality score]. Analyses were performed separately for all patients and for erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) non-users at baseline (non-dialysis population) or prevalent dialysis patients (dialysis population). Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods with non-informative priors were used to estimate the posterior probability distribution and generate pairwise treatment comparisons. Point estimates (medians of posterior distributions) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated. Results: Seventeen trials were included. In non-dialysis patients, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the three HIF-PHIs with respect to Hgb change from baseline [all patients analysis (total n = 7907): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, 0.09 g/dL (95% CrI -0.14, 0.31); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.09 g/dL (-0.04, 0.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.00 g/dL (-0.22, 0.22)] or risk of MACE [all patients analysis (total n = 7959): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16 (95% CrI 0.76, 1.77); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.88 (0.71, 1.09); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.76 (0.50, 1.16)]. Daprodustat showed a greater increase in SF-36 Vitality compared with roxadustat [total n = 4880; treatment difference 4.70 points (95% CrI 0.08, 9.31)]. In dialysis patients, Hgb change from baseline was higher with daprodustat and roxadustat compared with vadadustat [all patients analysis (total n = 11 124): daprodustat, 0.34 g/dL (0.22, 0.45); roxadustat, 0.38 g/dL (0.27, 0.49)], while there were no clinically meaningful differences in the risk of MACE between the HIF-PHIs [all patients analysis (total n = 12 320): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, HR 0.89 (0.73, 1.08); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, HR 0.99 (0.82, 1.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, HR 1.12 (0.92, 1.37)]. Results were similar in analyses of ESA non-users and prevalent dialysis patients. Conclusions: In the setting of anaemia in CKD, indirect treatment comparisons suggest that daprodustat, roxadustat, and vadadustat are broadly clinically comparable in terms of efficacy and cardiovascular safety (precision was low for the latter), while daprodustat may be associated with reduction in fatigue to a greater extent than roxadustat.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To generate comparative efficacy evidence of belimumab versus anifrolumab in SLE that can inform treatment practices. METHODS: The SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response at 52 weeks of belimumab versus anifrolumab was evaluated with an indirect treatment comparison. The evidence base consisted of randomised trials that were compiled through a systemic literature review.A feasibility assessment was performed to comprehensively compare the eligible trials and to determine the most appropriate indirect treatment comparison analysis method. A multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR) was implemented that adjusted for differences across trials in four baseline characteristics: SLE Disease Activity Index-2K, anti-double-stranded DNA antibody positive, low complement (C)3 and low C4. Additional analyses were conducted to explore if the results were robust to different sets of baseline characteristics included for adjustment, alternative adjustment methods and changes to the trials included in the evidence base. RESULTS: The ML-NMR included eight trials: five belimumab trials (BLISS-52, BLISS-76, NEA, BLISS-SC, EMBRACE) and three anifrolumab trials (MUSE, TULIP-1, TULIP-2). Belimumab and anifrolumab were comparable in terms of SRI-4 response (OR (95% credible interval), 1.04 (0.74-1.45)), with the direction of the point estimate slightly favouring belimumab. Belimumab had a 0.58 probability of being the more effective treatment. The results were highly consistent across all analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the SRI-4 response of belimumab and anifrolumab are similar at 52 weeks in the general SLE population, but the level of uncertainty around the point estimate means we cannot rule out the possibility of a clinically meaningful benefit for either treatment. It remains to be seen if specific groups of patients could derive a greater benefit from anifrolumab or from belimumab, and there is certainly an unmet need to identify robust predictors towards more personalised selection of available biological agents in SLE.
