Effectiveness of crizotinib versus entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer using clinical and real-world data.

Aims: To compare clinical trial results for crizotinib and entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and compare clinical trial data and real-world outcomes for crizotinib. Patients & methods: We analyzed four phase I-II studies using a simulated treatment comparison (STC). A STC of clinical trial versus real-world evidence compared crizotinib clinical data to real-world outcomes. Results: Adjusted STC found nonsignificant trends favoring crizotinib over entrectinib: objective response rate, risk ratio = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.85-1.28); median duration of response, mean difference = 16.11 months (95% CI: -1.57- 33.69); median progression-free survival, mean difference = 3.99 months (95% CI: -6.27-14.25); 12-month overall survival, risk ratio = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.90-1.12). Nonsignificant differences were observed between the trial end point values and the real-world evidence for crizotinib. Conclusions: Crizotinib and entrectinib have comparable efficacy in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study.

Standard network meta-analysis and indirect comparisons combine aggregate data from multiple studies on treatments of interest, assuming that any factors that interact with treatment effects (effect modifiers) are balanced across populations. Population adjustment methods such as multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR), matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC) relax this assumption using individual patient data from one or more studies, and are becoming increasingly prevalent in health technology appraisals and the applied literature. Motivated by an applied example and two recent reviews of applications, we undertook an extensive simulation study to assess the performance of these methods in a range of scenarios under various failures of assumptions. We investigated the impact of varying sample size, missing effect modifiers, strength of effect modification and validity of the shared effect modifier assumption, validity of extrapolation and varying between-study overlap, and different covariate distributions and correlations. ML-NMR and STC performed similarly, eliminating bias when the requisite assumptions were met. Serious concerns are raised for MAIC, which performed poorly in nearly all simulation scenarios and may even increase bias compared with standard indirect comparisons. All methods incur bias when an effect modifier is missing, highlighting the necessity of careful selection of potential effect modifiers prior to analysis. When all effect modifiers are included, ML-NMR and STC are robust techniques for population adjustment. ML-NMR offers additional advantages over MAIC and STC, including extending to larger treatment networks and producing estimates in any target population, making this an attractive choice in a variety of scenarios.

Advancing unanchored simulated treatment comparisons: A novel implementation and simulation study.

Population-adjusted indirect comparisons, developed in the 2010s, enable comparisons between two treatments in different studies by balancing patient characteristics in the case where individual patient-level data (IPD) are available for only one study. Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies increasingly rely on these methods to inform funding decisions, typically using unanchored indirect comparisons (i.e., without a common comparator), due to the need to evaluate comparative efficacy and safety for single-arm trials. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC) are currently the only two approaches available for population-adjusted indirect comparisons based on single-arm trials. However, there is a notable underutilisation of unanchored STC in HTA, largely due to a lack of understanding of its implementation. We therefore develop a novel way to implement unanchored STC by incorporating standardisation/marginalisation and the NORmal To Anything (NORTA) algorithm for sampling covariates. This methodology aims to derive a suitable marginal treatment effect without aggregation bias for HTA evaluations. We use a non-parametric bootstrap and propose separately calculating the standard error for the IPD study and the comparator study to ensure the appropriate quantification of the uncertainty associated with the estimated treatment effect. The performance of our proposed unanchored STC approach is evaluated through a comprehensive simulation study focused on binary outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that the proposed approach is asymptotically unbiased. We argue that unanchored STC should be considered when conducting unanchored indirect comparisons with single-arm studies, presenting a robust approach for HTA decision-making.

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.

On the double-robustness and semiparametric efficiency of matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) enables indirect comparisons of interventions across separate studies when individual patient-level data (IPD) are available for only one study. Due to its similarity with propensity score weighting, it has been speculated that MAIC can be combined with outcome regression models in the spirit of augmented inverse probability weighting estimators to improve robustness and efficiency. We show that MAIC enjoys intrinsic double-robustness and semiparametric efficiency properties for estimating the average treatment effect on the treated in the limited IPD setting without explicit augmentation. A connection between MAIC and the method of simulated treatment comparisons is highlighted. These results clarify conditions under which MAIC is consistent and efficient, informing appropriate application and interpretation of MAIC analyses.

Clinical Efficacy of Sarilumab Versus Upadacitinib Over 12 weeks: An Indirect Treatment Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs. METHODS: Patient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, DAS28-CRP < 2.6, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) < 3.3, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < 2.8 at 12 weeks. RESULTS: The analysis included 365 patients from TARGET and aggregated data of 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND. Matching for potential treatment effect baseline modifiers (i.e., age, oral glucocorticoid use, tender joint count of 68 counts, swollen joint count of 66 counts, serum CRP level, and patient global assessment of disease activity) resulted in a reduction of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 166. Following MAIC and STC analysis, the odds of achieving all aforementioned clinical outcomes versus placebo at week 12 were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: In the MAIC and STC analyses from TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials, the efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib were comparable.

Population adjusted-indirect comparisons in health technology assessment: A methodological systematic review.

In health technology assessment (HTA), population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) are increasingly considered to adjust for the difference in the target population between studies. We aim to assess the conduct and reporting of PAICs in recent HTA practice, by performing, a methodological systematic review of studies implementing PAICs from PubMed, EMBASE Classic, Embase/Ovid Medline All, and Cochrane databases from January 1, 2010 to Feb 13, 2023. Four independent researchers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-texts of the identified records, then extracted data on methodological and reporting characteristics of 106 eligible articles. Most PAIC analyses (96.9%, n = 157) were conducted by (or received funding from) pharmaceutical companies. Prior to adjustment, 44.5% of analyses (n = 72) (partially) aligned the eligibility criteria of different studies to enhance the similarity of their target populations. In 37.0% of analyses (n = 60), the clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies were extensively assessed. In 9.3% of analyses (n = 15), the quality (or bias) of individual studies was evaluated. Among 18 analyses using methods that required an outcome model specification, results of the model fitting procedure were adequately reported in three analyses (16.7%). These findings suggest that the conduct and reporting of PAICs are remarkably heterogeneous and suboptimal in current practice. More recommendations and guidelines on PAICs are thus warranted to enhance the quality of these analyses in the future.

Increasing transparency in indirect treatment comparisons: is selecting effect modifiers the missing part of the puzzle? A review of methodological approaches and critical considerations.

Failure to adjust for effect modifiers (EMs) in indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can produce biased and uncertain effect estimates. This is particularly important for health technology assessments (HTAs), where the availability of new treatments is based on comparative effectiveness results. Much emphasis has been placed on advancing ITC methods to adjust for EMs, yet whether EMs are appropriately identified for the conduct of ITCs in the first place is unclear. To understand the extent of guidance and requirements for the selection of EMs for ITCs currently available and if and how this guidance is applied in practice, a series of pragmatic reviews of guidance documents from HTA and non-payer organizations, primary published ITC analyses, and prior HTA submissions in two indications (non-small cell lung cancer and psoriasis) was conducted. The reviews showed that current ITC guidance mainly focused on developing analytical methods to adjust for EMs. Some organizations, such as HTA bodies in the UK, France and Germany, recommended the use of literature reviews, expert opinion and statistical methods to identify EMs. No detailed guidance on the selection process or the appropriate literature review approach was found. Similar trends were identified through the database search and review of prior HTA submissions; only few published ITCs and submissions included information on the EM selection process which was either based on findings from the literature, trial subgroup analyses, or clinical input. No reference to a systematic selection approach was found. There is an urgent need to fill the guidance gap identified across the reviews by including a step in ITC guidelines on how EMs should be identified through systematic reviews, formal expert elicitation, and a quantitative assessment of the EM distribution. Researchers and manufacturers are also encouraged to improve transparent reporting and justification of their selection of EMs to allow for an independent review of the set of factors being considered for adjustment. Both will contribute toward reducing bias in the ITC results and ultimately increase confidence in decision-making.

Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration.

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are anchored on a placebo comparator, and the placebo response may vary according to drug administration route. Migraine preventive treatment studies were used to evaluate ITCs and determine whether mode of administration influences placebo response and the overall study findings. Materials & methods: Change from baseline in monthly migraine days produced by monoclonal antibody treatments (subcutaneous, intravenous) was compared using fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), network meta-regression (NMR), and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC). Results: NMA and NMR provide mixed, rarely differentiated results between treatments, whereas unanchored STC strongly favors eptinezumab over other preventive treatments. Conclusion: Further investigations are needed to determine which ITC best reflects the impact of mode of administration on placebo.

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 treatment comparison of anifrolumab efficacy versus belimumab in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus.

Aim: Assess the comparative efficacy of anifrolumab 300 mg versus belimumab 10 mg/kg in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving standard therapy. Patients and methods: Population-adjusted simulated treatment comparisons (primary analyses) and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (supporting analyses) were conducted using individual patient data from TULIP-1/TULIP-2 and summary-level data from BLISS-52/BLISS-76. Results: Compared with belimumab-treated patients, anifrolumab-treated patients were more than twice as likely to achieve a reduction of four or more points in SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score (simulated treatment comparison odds ratio: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.16-5.25) and SLE Responder Index-4 response (odds ratio: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.22-5.58) at 52 weeks. Conclusion: Patients with moderate-to-severe SLE are more likely to achieve an improvement in disease activity with anifrolumab than with belimumab.

Tezepelumab compared with other biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.

Comparative Effectiveness of Remestemcel-L-rknd versus Ruxolitinib in Pediatric Patients with Steroid-Refractory Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease using Simulated Treatment Comparisons.

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be a lifesaving treatment for hematologic malignancies, but acute graft-versus-host-disease (aGVHD) is a potentially deadly adverse effect experienced by up to half of allo-HSCT recipients. Inadequate response to steroid therapy for aGVHD is associated with poor prognosis and high mortality, including among pediatric patients, who are the focus of this study. Ruxolitinib and remestemcel-L-rknd were evaluated for the treatment of steroid-refractory (SR) aGVHD in two separate single-arm trials. To effectively compare the safety and efficacy of these treatments without a head-to-head trial, a simulated treatment comparison (STC) was conducted. Methods: Regression techniques were used to adjust individual patient-level data from the remestemcel-L-rknd trial to mutually reported baseline characteristics from the ruxolitinib trial. Outcomes of interest included a 28-day overall response rate (ORR), a 28-day ORR in the grade III-IV aGVHD population, and adverse events (AEs). Results: In the full populations, the STC of risk ratios (RRs) found treatment with remestemcel-L-rknd to be associated with a numerical but not statistically significant improvement in the 28-day ORR versus ruxolitinib. In the grade III-IV aGVHD sub-group, the STC showed significantly improved 28-day ORR for remestemcel-L-rknd versus ruxolitinib (P=0.04). Remestemcel-L-rknd was also associated with improved safety outcomes (P<0.05) in 17 out of 30 AEs, including hematologic events, peripheral edema, muscular weakness, nausea, back pain, and fatigue. Conclusion: Remestemcel-L-rknd was associated with significant improvements in day 28 ORR compared with ruxolitinib in patients with severe (grade III-IV) SR aGVHD. Across all grades of SR aGVHD, remestemcel-L-rknd was associated with fewer all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (27/30) available for comparison, including the majority reaching statistical significance.

Comparative effectiveness of glasdegib versus venetoclax combined with low-dose cytarabine in acute myeloid leukemia.

Background: Two combination therapies recently approved and recommended for use in combination with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in acute myeloid leukemia patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy are glasdegib+LDAC and venetoclax+LDAC. Materials & methods: An indirect treatment comparison used median overall survival, overall survival hazard ratios, complete remission (CR), CR+CR with incomplete blood count recovery and transfusion independence to assess comparative effectiveness, and a simulated treatment comparison accounted for differences in patient characteristics between trials. Results: Differences in efficacy between glasdegib+LDAC and venetoclax+LDAC were suggestive and not statistically significant. Conclusion: With no significant differences in comparative effectiveness, considerations such as safety profiles, burden of administration and patient preference are likely to guide treatment decisions.

Comparative effectiveness of nivolumab versus clinical practice for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Aim: To determine the effectiveness of nivolumab compared with routine clinical practice (RCP) for patients with gastric or gastroesophageal cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, two or more previous regimens, using real-world electronic patient records from a US population, a single-arm trial (CheckMate 032) and a randomized controlled trial in an Asian setting (ATTRACTION-2). Materials & methods: A simulated treatment comparison was conducted to predict overall survival for patients treated with nivolumab compared with RCP in the USA. Results: Results of the indirect simulated treatment comparison suggest that nivolumab is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality relative to RCP (Hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.68). Conclusion: The survival benefit of nivolumab may extend more generally to the USA.

Overall survival of glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine, azacitidine, and decitabine among adult patients with previously untreated AML: comparative effectiveness using simulated treatment comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, treatments for older patients with AML ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapies were limited to hypomethylating agents, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), or clinical trials. In 2018, the FDA approved combination glasdegib (GLAS) plus LDAC based on Phase II results demonstrating improved overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone in previously untreated AML. However, no randomized clinical trials have directly compared GLAS + LDAC with other AML treatments. OBJECTIVE: Using both indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC), which adjusts for baseline differences between trials, the comparative effectiveness of GLAS + LDAC was compared with hypomethylating agent azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published trials of AZA or DEC versus LDAC among older AML patients ineligible for high-intensity chemotherapy. In addition to standard and covariate-adjusted ITC, STC was performed following guidance from the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU). Using individual patient data from the Phase II GLAS + LDAC study, population-specific OS hazard ratios (HR) for GLAS + LDAC versus AZA or DEC were compared. Furthermore, covariate-adjusted ITC (Cox multivariate models) and STC were repeated using GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC data propensity-weighted for within-trial mean cytogenetic risk. As this initial step was not specified in the DSU, results from this second method were compared to the first STC following DSU guidance only. RESULTS: Standard ITC and STC both demonstrated significantly improved OS for GLAS + LDAC versus either AZA or DEC. Adjusting for key covariates, STC stepwise exponential models demonstrated GLAS + LDAC superiority to both AZA (HR=0.424; 95% CI: 0.228, 0.789) and DEC (HR=0.505; 95% CI: 0.269, 0.949). These significant results held using full or step-wise approaches, following DSU guidance only or the weighted STC approach. CONCLUSION: Using ITC and STC, GLAS + LDAC demonstrated superior OS to AZA or DEC in an adult population with previously untreated AML for whom intensive chemotherapy is not an option.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Versus Blinatumomab for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies. METHODS: Patient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses. RESULTS: Analyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina. CONCLUSION: Results from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article.