A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of results from REDUCE and RESPECT-two randomized trials on patent foramen ovale closure devices to prevent recurrent cryptogenic stroke.

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Two randomized clinical trials, REDUCE and RESPECT, demonstrated that patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in combination with antithrombotic therapy was more effective for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke compared with antithrombotic therapy alone. The aim of this study was to determine the relative efficacy and safety of the PFO closure devices used in REDUCE (HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders) compared with the device used in RESPECT (Amplatzer PFO Occluder). METHODS: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the PFO closure arms of the REDUCE and RESPECT trials was performed using patient-level data from REDUCE weighted to match baseline characteristics from RESPECT. Comparisons of the following outcomes were made between the devices assessed in the trials risk of recurrent ischemic stroke; recurrent ischemic stroke one year after randomization; any serious adverse event (SAE) related to the procedure or device; and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as an SAE related to the procedure or device. RESULTS: After conducting the MAIC, baseline characteristics were well-matched between the two trials. Compared to RESPECT, PFO closure using the devices from REDUCE resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.43; p = 0.17) for the risk of recurrent stroke. For the recurrence of stroke after one year, SAE related to the procedure or device, and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as SAE related to the procedure or device, the MAIC resulted in a rate difference of -0.68 (95%CI -2.06 to 0.70; p = .34), -1.29 (95%CI -3.82 to 1.25; p = .32), and -0.19 (95%CI -1.16 to 0.78; p = .71), respectively. These findings were consistent across scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This MAIC analysis found no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety outcomes between PFO closure with the HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders versus the Amplatzer PFO Occluder, as used in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials.

The individual efficacy and safety of medical devices used for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in patients with stroke of unknown origin has been demonstrated in two independent trials REDUCE (using the HELEX Septal Occluder and the CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder) and RESPECT (using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder). In the absence of a direct head-to-head trial for these devices, indirect treatment comparisons offer an alternative to assess their relative efficacy and safety. This study used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to demonstrate that there were no significant differences between the devices used for PFO closure in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials in terms of safety outcomes.