Dataset Information

Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?

ABSTRACT: Patients with focal seizures recruited into adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) trials have become more refractory and severe over time; concurrently, placebo responses have increased. To attempt to account for heterogeneity among trials, propensity-score weighted patient-level data were used to indirectly compare placebo responses reported in brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials.Patient-level data from randomised, placebo-controlled brivaracetam (recruited 2007-2014) and levetiracetam (1993-1998) trials were pooled. Consistent inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied and outcomes were defined consistently. Potentially confounding baseline characteristics were adjusted for using propensity score weighting. Weighting success was assessed using placebo response.In total, 707 and 473 active drug and 399 and 253 placebo patients comprised the brivaracetam and levetiracetam groups, respectively. Before weighting, several baseline variables were significantly different between groups; after weighting, prior vagal nerve stimulation, co-morbid depression and co-morbid anxiety remained different. Before weighting, median seizure frequency reduction was 21.7 and 3.9% in the brivaracetam and levetiracetam placebo arms, respectively; after weighting, median reduction was 15.0 and 6.0%. The comparison of non-randomised groups could be biased by unobserved confounding factors and region of residence. Lifetime AED history was unavailable in the brivaracetam trials and excluded from analysis.Placebo responses remained different between brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials after propensity score weighting, indicating the presence of residual confounding factors associated with placebo response in these trials. It therefore remains problematic to conduct reliable indirect comparisons of brivaracetam and levetiracetam given the current evidence base, which may apply to comparisons between other AED trials.

SUBMITTER: Swallow E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5658476 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?

Swallow Elyse E Fang Anna A Signorovitch James J Plumb Jonathan J Borghs Simon S

CNS drugs 20171001 10

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Patients with focal seizures recruited into adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) trials have become more refractory and severe over time; concurrently, placebo responses have increased. To attempt to account for heterogeneity among trials, propensity-score weighted patient-level data were used to indirectly compare placebo responses reported in brivaracetam and levetiracetam trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Patient-level data from randomised, placebo-controlled brivaracetam ...[more]

PMID: 28856580

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionIntravenous (IV) administration of iron is considered a safe and efficacious treatment for iron deficiency anemia (IDA), recommended in patients requiring rapid replenishment of iron, or intolerant or unresponsive to oral administration of iron. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown high incidence of hypophosphatemia after administration of two IV iron preparations: saccharated ferric oxide (SFO) and ferric carboxymaltose (FCM). The present study aimed to conduct matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of hypophosphatemia incidence with these iron formulations and ferric derisomaltose (FDI) based on data from head-to-head RCTs conducted in Japan.MethodsA MAIC of hypophosphatemia incidence was conducted on the basis of data from two head-to-head RCTs. The relative odds of hypophosphatemia with FDI versus SFO were obtained from patient-level data from a recent RCT and adjusted for cumulative iron dose, while parametric models of serum phosphate levels from a separate RCT were used to estimate the relative odds of hypophosphatemia with FCM with SFO. An anchored MAIC was then conducted comparing FDI with FCM.ResultsThe adjusted odds of experiencing hypophosphatemia were significantly lower with FDI than SFO [odds ratio (OR) of 0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.05]. The parametric models of serum phosphate from the RCT comparing FCM with SFO provided an estimated OR of 1.17 for the incidence of hypophosphatemia with FCM versus SFO. Combining the two estimates in the MAIC showed that the odds of experiencing hypophosphatemia would be 52.5 (95% CI 27.7-99.4) times higher with FCM than FDI in patients with IDA associated with heavy menstrual bleeding in Japan.ConclusionsDirect comparison of patient-level data and a MAIC from two RCTs in Japanese patients with heavy menstrual bleeding indicated that hypophosphatemia is less frequent in patients treated with FDI than those with FCM or SFO. Results are in agreement with RCTs comparing FDI and FCM in patients with various etiologies conducted in the USA and Europe.

Project description:IntroductionThis article aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive brivaracetam (BRV) in adults with focal-onset seizures on specific concomitant antiseizure medications (ASMs) taken as part of their treatment regimen.MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N01252/NCT00490035, N01253/NCT00464269, and N01358/NCT01261325) in patients with uncontrolled focal-onset seizures randomized to BRV (50-200 mg/day) or placebo on the most common concomitant ASMs at trial initiation.ResultsNine concomitant ASMs were analyzed: carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), valproate (VPA), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM), phenytoin (PHT), lacosamide (LCM), clobazam (CLB), and phenobarbital (PHB). Reduction over placebo in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days with BRV ranged from 11.7% (concomitant OXC) to 33.5% (concomitant PHB). The median percentage reduction from baseline in focal-onset seizure frequency per 28 days ranged from 25.5% to 42.8% in patients on BRV (placebo 4.4-21.2%); 50% responder rates ranged from 31.9% to 44.9% in patients on BRV (placebo 11.4-25.2%). In patients on BRV, seizure freedom ranged from 1.4% (concomitant PHT) to 12.5% (concomitant LCM); seizure freedom ranged from 0% to 1.2% in patients on placebo. All efficacy endpoints analyzed were consistently numerically higher in patients on BRV versus placebo. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was generally similar across subgroups by specific concomitant ASMs in patients on BRV (range 60.8-74.5%) or placebo (range 53.8-66.7%). Drug-related TEAEs were numerically higher across all subgroups by concomitant ASM in patients on BRV (range 35.2-48.3%) versus placebo (range 23.9-37.1%). Discontinuations due to TEAEs ranged from 2.9% to 13.3% in patients on BRV and was 0-5.7% for patients taking placebo across subgroups.ConclusionBRV was efficacious and well tolerated regardless of the specific concomitant ASMs used as part of their treatment regimen. These data show that in patients with focal-onset seizures, BRV provides additional efficacy to a broad range of ASMs.

Project description:PurposeFor patients with hemophilia B, extended half-life factor IX (FIX) products are available for prophylaxis and for treating bleeds. Different methods are used to extend the half-lives of recombinant FIX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) and nonacog beta pegol (N9-GP). This affects their biodistribution and plasma FIX levels, although differences do not always correlate with clinical outcomes. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of prophylaxis with rFIXFc and N9-GP was performed, based on licensed dosing in the European Union.Patients and methodsCombined rFIXFc data from the weekly and individualized interval prophylaxis arms of the B-LONG clinical trial, and N9-GP data from the 40 IU/kg once-weekly prophylaxis arm of PARADIGM 2 were used in a MAIC. Individual patient data for rFIXFc (n=87) were matched to aggregated data for N9-GP (n=29). Estimated annualized bleeding rates (ABRs) for rFIXFc were recalculated using a Poisson regression model with adjustment for over-dispersion, and compared with ABRs reported for N9-GP, using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsThere was no evidence of significant differences in estimated ABRs between prophylaxis with rFIXFc and N9-GP. Analysis of pooled rFIXFc weekly and interval-adjusted dosing compared with N9-GP 40 IU/kg once weekly produced estimated ABRs of 2.59 versus 2.51 (IRR 1.03; 95% CI 0.56-1.89), as well as 1.34 versus 1.22 (IRR 1.10; 95% CI 0.42-2.91) and 1.13 versus 1.29 (IRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.47-1.63) for overall, spontaneous, and traumatic bleeding events, respectively.ConclusionThe study did not reveal any significant differences in the efficacy of rFIXFc and N9-GP prophylaxis. Given differences in trough levels (rFIXFc dosing was targeted to achieve a trough 1-3 IU/dL above baseline versus a reported estimated N9-GP mean trough of 27.3 IU/dL), interpreting plasma FIX levels as potential surrogate efficacy markers requires consideration of compound-specific pharmacokinetic profiles.

Dataset Information

Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?

Publications

Can Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Methods Mitigate Placebo Response Differences Among Patient Populations in Adjunctive Trials of Brivaracetam and Levetiracetam?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets