Dataset Information

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Between Risankizumab and Ustekinumab for Induction and Maintenance Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Risankizumab (RZB) and ustekinumab (UST), interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors, respectively, are approved treatments for moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD); direct comparison between the two is ongoing. We indirectly compared efficacy of RZB versus UST using data from phase 3 trials (RZB: NCT03104413; NCT03105128; NCT03105102; UST: NCT01369329; NCT01369342; NCT01369355).

Methods

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient-level data from RZB trials and published aggregated data from UST trials. During induction, patients received RZB 600 mg intravenous (IV) at weeks 0, 4, and 8 or a single dose of UST 6 mg/kg IV at week 0. During maintenance, patients received RZB 180 or 360 mg subcutaneous (SC) or UST 90 mg SC every 8 or 12 weeks to 52 weeks. Outcomes included proportion of patients achieving Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response (decrease of ≥ 100 points or total score < 150) or remission (CDAI ≤ 150) and endoscopic improvement (measured by the Simple Endoscopic Score in CD [SES-CD]; response, ≥ 50% reduction from baseline; remission, SES-CD ≤ 2) following induction/baseline.

Results

Higher proportions of patients achieved clinical and endoscopic outcomes with RZB vs. UST induction treatment, resulting in significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater percent differences (95% confidence intervals) between groups for CDAI remission (15% [5%, 25%]) and endoscopic response (26% [13%, 40%]) and remission (9% [0%, 19%]). Following maintenance, rates of CDAI remission were similar (range - 0.3% to - 5.0%) for RZB vs. UST. Differences for endoscopic response and remission ranged from 9.3% to 27.7% and 11.6% to 12.5%, respectively; differences were significant (p < 0.05) for endoscopic response for both doses of RZB compared to UST 12-week dosing.

Conclusions

This indirect comparison demonstrated higher rates of clinical and endoscopic outcomes during induction for RZB compared to UST; CDAI remission following maintenance was comparable. Direct comparisons of RZB and UST are warranted to validate these findings.

SUBMITTER: Dubinsky M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10427520 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Between Risankizumab and Ustekinumab for Induction and Maintenance Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease.

Dubinsky Marla M Ma Christopher C Griffith Jenny J Crowell Marjorie M Neimark Ezequiel E Kligys Kristina K O'Connell Tom T

Advances in therapy 20230627 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Risankizumab (RZB) and ustekinumab (UST), interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12/23 inhibitors, respectively, are approved treatments for moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD); direct comparison between the two is ongoing. We indirectly compared efficacy of RZB versus UST using data from phase 3 trials (RZB: NCT03104413; NCT03105128; NCT03105102; UST: NCT01369329; NCT01369342; NCT01369355).<h4>Methods</h4>Matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individu ...[more]

PMID: 37368103

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhere head-to-head trials are lacking, indirect comparative effectiveness can aid treatment decisions. We conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of clinical outcomes with filgotinib vs recently approved comparators (vedolizumab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab) in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).MethodsIndividual patient data from the SELECTION trial (NCT02914522) for filgotinib 200 mg were weighted to match average baseline characteristics of active treatment and placebo arms in comparator trials. Efficacy outcomes were compared for biologic-naive and biologic-experienced subgroups in induction and maintenance populations, if data were available. Safety and health-related quality of life outcomes were compared in the overall maintenance population.ResultsFilgotinib had a similar effect on efficacy outcomes compared with tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and subcutaneous vedolizumab in both the induction and maintenance populations. Filgotinib showed improved clinical response vs intravenous (IV) vedolizumab (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 5.5; P < .05) among the biologic-experienced induction population, and improved corticosteroid-free clinical remission (odds ratio, 15.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 139.9; P < .05) among the biologic-naive maintenance population. Improved efficacy outcomes were reported with filgotinib compared with ustekinumab among the maintenance population. Higher estimates of serious adverse events were reported for filgotinib compared with vedolizumab IV 300 mg and tofacitinib 5 mg; however, imbalances were noted in their placebo groups. Health-related quality of life outcomes were similar between filgotinib and comparators.ConclusionsMatching-adjusted indirect comparison results suggest superiority of filgotinib 200 mg over vedolizumab IV in terms of clinical response and corticosteroid-free clinical remission in certain patient populations, noting small sample sizes and wide CIs, which may aid the selection of advanced therapies for moderately to severely active UC. A potential increased risk of serious adverse events was reported for filgotinib 200 mg vs vedolizumab IV and tofacitinib 5 mg, but findings should be interpreted with caution owing to underlying imbalances observed between the placebo groups of SELECTION and comparator trials.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited.MethodsUsing data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator.ResultsThe proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators.ConclusionIn patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist.

Project description:BackgroundAnchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.MethodsA modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.ResultsDespite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.ConclusionsTwo-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial.

Project description:IntroductionThe relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC).MethodsRelevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons.ResultsIn patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]).ConclusionsUsing MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.Trial registrationNCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.

Dataset Information

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Between Risankizumab and Ustekinumab for Induction and Maintenance Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Between Risankizumab and Ustekinumab for Induction and Maintenance Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Crohn's Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets