Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab versus Secukinumab for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Phase III FUTURE I and II trials demonstrated the clinical efficacy of secukinumab in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the absence of head-to-head trials, this study compared the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of adalimumab 40 mg versus secukinumab 150 and 300 mg for the treatment of active PsA.

Methods

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient data from the ADEPT trial of adalimumab and published data from FUTURE I and II. To adjust for the cross-trial differences, individual patients in ADEPT were re-weighted so that the mean baseline characteristics (including age, weight, gender, race, baseline methotrexate use, psoriasis ≥3% body surface area, baseline PASI score, presence of dactylitis and enthesitis, and HAQ-DI) matched those in the FUTURE trials. Response rates relative to placebo and incremental costs per responder (CPR) over 24 weeks for ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75/90 were compared between adalimumab and secukinumab 150 and 300 mg from the German social health insurance (SHI) perspective.

Results

After matching, mean baseline characteristics were balanced across the ADEPT and the FUTURE I and II populations. The mean differences between adalimumab and secukinumab 150 mg in relative ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75/90 response rates were 9.5, 3.0, 6.0, 13.1, and 6.7%, respectively (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Post-match relative ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75 to placebo were also higher with adalimumab compared to secukinumab 300 mg. Adalimumab had lower incremental costs per responder over 24 weeks for all outcomes compared with secukinumab 150 and 300 mg.

Conclusions

In the absence of direct comparisons between adalimumab and secukinumab, this study provides valuable and reliable evidence for physicians and payers. After adjusting for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, adalimumab was associated with higher relative ACR and PASI rates and lower incremental CPRs compared with secukinumab 150 mg or 300 mg at week 24 among patients with active PsA.

Funding

AbbVie.

SUBMITTER: Strand V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5696282 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Secukinumab and adalimumab are approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the absence of direct randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, matching-adjusted indirect comparison can estimate the comparative effectiveness in anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve populations. METHODS:Individual patient data from the FUTURE 2 RCT (secukinumab vs. placebo; N?=?299) were adjusted to match baseline characteristics of the ADEPT RCT (adalimumab vs. placebo; N?=?313). Logistic regression determined adjustment weights for age, body weight, sex, race, methotrexate use, psoriasis affecting???3% of body surface area, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score, presence of dactylitis and enthesitis, and previous anti-TNF therapy. Recalculated secukinumab outcomes were compared with adalimumab outcomes at weeks 12 (placebo-adjusted), 16, 24, and 48 (nonplacebo-adjusted). RESULTS:After matching, the effective sample size for FUTURE 2 was 101. Week 12 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates were not significantly different between secukinumab and adalimumab. Week 16 ACR 20 and 50 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg than for adalimumab (P?=?0.017, P?=?0.033), as was ACR 50 for secukinumab 300 mg (P?=?0.030). Week 24 ACR 20 and 50 were higher for secukinumab 150 mg than for adalimumab (P?=?0.001, P?=?0.019), as was ACR 20 for secukinumab 300 mg (P?=?0.048). Week 48 ACR 20 was higher for secukinumab 150 and 300 mg than for adalimumab (P?=?0.002, P?=?0.027), as was ACR 50 for secukinumab 300 mg (P?=?0.032). CONCLUSIONS:In our analysis, patients with PsA receiving secukinumab were more likely to achieve higher ACR responses through 1 year (weeks 16-48) than those treated with adalimumab. Although informative, these observations rely on a subgroup of patients from FUTURE 2 and thus should be considered interim until the ongoing head-to-head RCT EXCEED can validate these findings. FUNDING:Novartis Pharma AG.

Project description:ObjectiveMatching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of two treatments indirectly using data from randomized placebo-controlled trials. This MAIC assessed the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab (an anti-interleukin-17A) and etanercept (a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor) in a target population of biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsIndividual patient data pooled from FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634), FUTURE 3 (NCT01989468), and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350) (secukinumab: 150 mg, n=458 and 300 mg, n=461) were matched to data from the population in the NCT00317499 trial (etanercept 25 mg, n=101) using MAIC methodology, by adjusting for clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Recalculated outcomes from FUTURE 2, 3, and 5 (150 mg, effective sample size (ESS) post-matching=104; 300 mg, ESS=75; and placebo, ESS=159) were compared with the NCT00317499 trial. Pairwise comparisons using odds ratios (ORs) were performed for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 response criteria at week 12 (placebo-adjusted) and week 24 (non-placebo-adjusted).ResultsAt week 12, there were no significant differences in ACR responses between secukinumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between secukinumab 150 mg and etanercept at week 24 with respect to ACR 20 and 50 response rates; however, ACR 70 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 4.48 (2.01-9.99), p<0.001). ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were higher with secukinumab 300 mg than with etanercept at this time point (OR (95% CI): ACR 20, 3.28 (1.69-6.38), p<0.001; ACR 50, 1.90 (1.04-3.50), p=0.038; and ACR 70, 3.56 (1.51-8.40), p=0.004).ConclusionIn this MAIC, secukinumab was associated with higher ACR 20 and 50 (secukinumab 300 mg) and 70 (secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg) response rates at week 24 than etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with active PsA, whereas no significant difference was observed in the short-term at week 12.

Project description:IntroductionDeucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, is approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO). This study compared the long-term efficacy of deucravacitinib and adalimumab using results from long-term extension (LTE) trials.MethodsOpen-label LTE trials were identified for an indirect treatment comparison (deucravacitinib: POETYK PSO-LTE [NCT04036435]; adalimumab: REVEAL extension [NCT00195676]). To ensure study design comparability, patients initially randomized to placebo and switched to deucravacitinib or adalimumab after week 16 were compared. The primary outcome was an ≥ 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 112 postrandomization. Secondary outcomes were PASI 75 at week 52 and an ≥ 90% reduction in PASI score (PASI 90) at weeks 52 and 112. Missing PASI data were imputed. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted; individual patient-level data from POETYK PSO-LTE were reweighted to balance baseline characteristics with those from the REVEAL extension.ResultsBefore reweighting, on average, patients in the POETYK PSO-LTE (N = 329) versus the REVEAL (N = 345) extension were older, had a lower body weight, received more prior systemic treatments, and had higher baseline PASI scores and week 16 placebo PASI 75 and PASI 90 response rates. Following reweighting, adjusted week 112 PASI 75 response rates were significantly higher for deucravacitinib versus adalimumab (67.2% vs. 54.0%; mean difference [95% CI], 13.2 [4.0-22.5] percentage points). Deucravacitinib had a numerically higher adjusted week 112 PASI 90 response rate (41.3% vs. 34.0%; mean difference [95% CI], 7.3 [-2.0 to 16.7] percentage points). The treatments had similar week 52 adjusted PASI 75 and PASI 90 response rates.ConclusionIn this interim analysis, adults with moderate to severe PsO had higher long-term response rates at 2 years when treated with deucravacitinib versus adalimumab. Deucravacitinib response rates remained stable whereas adalimumab response rates declined in year 2.

Project description:IntroductionUpadacitinib and tofacitinib are Janus kinase inhibitors approved for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing their effectiveness, this study assessed the efficacy of upadacitinib 15 mg once-daily monotherapy/combination therapy against tofacitinib 5 mg twice-daily combination therapy among patients with RA using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).MethodsThe first of two MAICs used individual patient data (IPD) from the 14-week SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trial (upadacitinib [n = 217] vs. methotrexate [n = 216]) and published data from the ORAL Standard trial (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 204] vs. methotrexate [n = 108]). The second MAIC used IPD from the 26-week SELECT-COMPARE trial (upadacitinib + methotrexate [n = 647] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 324]) and published data from ORAL Strategy (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 376] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 386]). Data from patients in the upadacitinib trials were re-weighted based on age, sex, race, swollen joint count 66/28, tender joint count 68/28, C-reactive protein (CRP), and patients' global assessments to match the patient characteristics in tofacitinib trials. After matching, ACR20/50/70 and clinical remission (SDAI[CRP] ≤ 3.3, CDAI ≤ 2.8, DAS28-ESR/CRP < 2.6) were compared for upadacitinib vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at month 3 and upadacitinib + methotrexate vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at months 3 and 6 using Wald tests.ResultsAt month 3, upadacitinib monotherapy patients experienced significantly larger improvement in ACR70 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (mean difference in difference [DID]: 9.9%; p = 0.019), while upadacitinib + methotrexate was associated with higher ACR50 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (DID: 12.9%; p = 0.011). At month 6, upadacitinib + methotrexate patients experienced significantly larger improvement in SDAI/CDAI/DAS28-ESR clinical remission compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate, with DIDs of 9.1% (p = 0.011), 7.5% (p = 0.038), and 11.3% (p = 0.002), respectively.ConclusionsCompared to tofacitinib combination therapy, treatment with upadacitinib monotherapy and combination therapy were associated with improved outcomes at 3/6 months (monotherapy: ACR70; combination: ACR50, SDAI, CDAI, and DAS28-ESR remission).

Project description:IntroductionA previous network meta-analysis established 16-week relative efficacy with bimekizumab, an inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, versus other treatments for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), including the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab and ixekizumab. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) assessed 52-week relative efficacy of bimekizumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab.MethodsIndividual patient data from BE MOBILE 2 (bimekizumab 160 mg; N = 220) were matched to pooled summary data from MEASURE 1/2/3/4 (secukinumab 150 mg), MEASURE 3 (secukinumab 300 mg; escalated dose for inadequate responders), COAST-V (ixekizumab) and COAST-V/-W (ixekizumab). BE MOBILE 2 patients were reweighted using propensity score weights based on age, sex, ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, weight, baseline ASDAS and BASFI (secukinumab) and baseline BASDAI (ixekizumab), and 52-week efficacy outcomes from the trial recalculated. Odds ratios (OR) or mean difference for unanchored comparisons are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAt week 52, MAIC demonstrated that patients may have higher likelihood of improvement in key efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus secukinumab 150 mg (e.g., ASAS40: [OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.05, 2.10); p = 0.026]; effective sample size [ESS] = 177). Differences in 52-week efficacy outcomes between bimekizumab and secukinumab 300 mg dose escalation were non-significant (ESS = 120). Bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg comparisons (COAST-V only; ESS = 84) also suggested that differences were non-significant for most key efficacy outcomes. Other ixekizumab comparisons (COAST-V/-W; ESS = 45) suggested bimekizumab may have higher comparative efficacy for many of the same efficacy outcomes, however ixekizumab analyses were limited by poor population overlap, likely due to the greater proportion of patients with previous TNFi exposure.ConclusionsPatients treated with bimekizumab may have a higher likelihood of achieving improved longer-term efficacy versus secukinumab 150 mg, suggesting bimekizumab may be a favorable therapeutic option for r-axSpA. Differences in efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg were mostly non-significant, depending on the populations considered.

Project description:To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of novel biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to establish the position of the non-anti-tumor necrosis factor ? (TNF-?) biologic drugs in the treatment regimen of the disease. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) requirements. Two investigators identified the studies, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. The NMA was conducted for efficacy [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, ACR20 and ACR50; psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), PASI75] and safety outcomes [any adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)]; treatments were ranked using the P score for each outcome. The PROSPERO registration number was 42017072200. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to July 10, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab or ustekinumab in adults with moderate and severe PsA were included. The overall PsA population and anti-TNF-?-naive, anti-TNF-?-failure, or anti-TNF-?-experienced subpopulations were considered. We identified eight eligible RCTs and included them in the systematic review and NMA. Significant differences in ACR20 response rate were revealed between secukinumab 150 mg and apremilast 20 mg [relative risk; RR?=?2.55 (CI-confidence interval; 1.24, 5.23)] and between secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 20 or 30 mg [RR?=?3.57 CI (1.48, 8.64) and RR?=?2.84 CI (1.18, 6.86), respectively]. Any AEs occurred more often in apremilast 20 and 30 mg compared with placebo [RR?=?0.58 CI (0.45, 0.74) and RR?=?0.58 CI (0.45, 0.75), respectively] but also compared with secukinumab 150 mg [RR?=?0.54 CI (0.35, 0.81) and RR?=?0.45 CI (0.35, 0.82), respectively]. No significant differences were revealed for SAEs among biologics and between biologics and placebo. In the overall population, as well as in the anti-TNF-?-naive subpopulation, secukinumab at a dose of 300 and 150 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 endpoint, while in the anti-TNF-?-experienced subpopulation, secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 30 mg revealed the highest rank. Secukinumab 75 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, but for SEAs the safest was ustekinumab 90 mg. Our study revealed no significant differences among non-anti-TNF-? biologics in the treatment of PsA in the comparisons performed with regards to the highest efficacy and safety. Both in the overall population and in the analyzed subpopulations, secukinumab 300 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 response rate. Secukinumab 300 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, and ustekinumab 90 mg presented the lowest overall risk of SAEs. Head-to-head trials and evaluation of comparative efficacy and safety between non-TNF-? biologics are warranted to inform clinical decision making with a relevant treatment paradigm.