Dataset Information

Performance of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) for the evidence synthesis of single-arm trials with time-to-event outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the performance of a time-to-event data reconstruction method, to assess the bias and efficiency of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methods for the analysis of time-to-event outcomes, and to propose an approach to adjust the bias of unanchored MAIC when omitted confounders across trials may exist.

Methods

To evaluate the methods using a Monte Carlo approach, a thousand repetitions of simulated data sets were generated for two single-arm trials. In each repetition, researchers were assumed to have access to individual-level patient data (IPD) for one of the trials and the published Kaplan-Meier curve of another. First, we compared the raw data and the reconstructed IPD using Cox regressions to determine the performance of the data reconstruction method. Then, we evaluated alternative unanchored MAIC strategies with varying completeness of covariates for matching in terms of bias, efficiency, and confidence interval coverage. Finally, we proposed a bias factor-adjusted approach to gauge the true effects when unanchored MAIC estimates might be biased due to omitted variables.

Results

Reconstructed data sufficiently represented raw data in the sense that the difference between the raw and reconstructed data was not statistically significant over the one thousand repetitions. Also, the bias of unanchored MAIC estimates ranged from minimal to substantial as the set of covariates became less complete. More, the confidence interval estimates of unanchored MAIC were suboptimal even using the complete set of covariates. Finally, the bias factor-adjusted method we proposed substantially reduced omitted variable bias.

Conclusions

Unanchored MAIC should be used to analyze time-to-event outcomes with caution. The bias factor may be used to gauge the true treatment effect.

SUBMITTER: Jiang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526361 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) for the evidence synthesis of single-arm trials with time-to-event outcomes.

Jiang Yawen Y Ni Weiyi W

BMC medical research methodology 20200929 1

<h4>Background</h4>The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the performance of a time-to-event data reconstruction method, to assess the bias and efficiency of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methods for the analysis of time-to-event outcomes, and to propose an approach to adjust the bias of unanchored MAIC when omitted confounders across trials may exist.<h4>Methods</h4>To evaluate the methods using a Monte Carlo approach, a thousand repetitions of simulated ...[more]

PMID: 32993519

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionsIn 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.FundingAbbVie.

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: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:OBJECTIVE:Matching-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). METHODS:Individual 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). RESULTS:At 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). CONCLUSION:In 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:IntroductionAblation Index, also known as VISITAG SURPOINT™, is a novel lesion-quality marker that improves outcomes in radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no direct evidence on the comparative effectiveness of RF ablation with Ablation Index and cryoballoon (CB). The objective of the present study was to conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) using individual patient-level data (IPD) to compare the effectiveness of RF ablation with Ablation Index to that of CB on recurrence of atrial arrhythmias 12 months after catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF).MethodsIndividual patient-level data for RF ablation with Ablation Index were obtained from two studies: Solimene et al. [J Interv Card Electrophysiol 54(1):9-15, 2019] and Hussein et al. [J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 28(9):1037-1047, 2017]. Comparable CB studies identified from a systematic literature review were pooled. Prognostic variables for adjustment were ranked a priori by several practicing electrophysiologists. In the absence of a common treatment arm between the Ablation Index and CB studies, an unanchored MAIC was conducted. Primary analysis compared the Solimene et al. study to pooled CB studies. A secondary analysis compared pooled RF ablation with Ablation Index studies to pooled CB studies. Several scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsPrimary analyses showed statistically significant reductions in the rate of arrhythmia recurrence with RF ablation with Ablation Index compared to CB in unmatched, unadjusted (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.95) and matched (0.42, 0.21-0.86) analyses. Greater reductions in the rate of arrhythmia recurrence that favored RF ablation with Ablation Index were observed after matching and adjusting for age (0.41, 0.20-0.85), age and left ventricular ejection fraction (0.37, 0.16-0.88), and age, sex, and left ventricular ejection fraction (0.30, 0.13-0.71). Secondary and sensitivity analyses showed similar reductions.ConclusionsRadiofrequency ablation with Ablation Index was associated with reductions in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared to CB in unmatched and unadjusted, matched, and matched and adjusted comparisons.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has grown substantially. As a result, patients, healthcare providers, and insurers are increasingly interested in comparative efficacy and safety evaluations to distinguish between treatment options, but head-to-head studies between DMTs are limited.ObjectiveThe aim of the current study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes with the DMTs ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to adjust for cross-trial differences in study design and population.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ozanimod compared with DMF. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for ozanimod were obtained from the SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials, and aggregate-level patient data (APD) for DMF were obtained from CONFIRM and DEFINE. A MAIC is used to weight IPD to APD based on important baseline patient characteristics considered to be effect modifiers or prognostic factors in order to balance the covariate distribution to establish more homogenous trial populations. Once trial populations are determined to be sufficiently homogenous, outcomes of interest are estimated and used to generate treatment effects between the weighted IPD and APD. We used MAIC methodology to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of interest between ozanimod 1.0 mg once daily (OD) and DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID), including confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 and 6 months, annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs.ResultsAfter matching patient data, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and those receiving DMF. Compared with DMF, ozanimod demonstrated significantly improved CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.86), ARR (rate ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.97), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.83), overall AEs (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08-0.16), SAEs (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.19-0.39), and discontinuations (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07-0.17). CDP at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two agents (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.26).ConclusionsAfter adjustment of baseline patient characteristics, the MAIC demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of ozanimod 1.0 mg OD was superior to that of DMF 240 mg BID. Although a MAIC is less likely to produce biased estimates than a naïve or a standard indirect treatment comparison via a common comparator, limitations include potential confounding due to unobserved and thus unaccounted for baseline differences.

Project description:BackgroundIn the absence of randomized studies directly comparing chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies, this study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL).MethodsPrimary data sources included individual patient data from the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (TRANSCEND [NCT02631044]; N = 256 for efficacy set, N = 269 for safety set) for liso-cel and summary-level data from the ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216; N = 101 for efficacy set, N = 108 for safety set) for axi-cel. Inter-study differences in design, eligibility criteria, baseline characteristics, and outcomes were assessed and aligned to the extent feasible. Clinically relevant prognostic factors were adjusted in a stepwise fashion by ranked order. Since bridging therapy was allowed in TRANSCEND but not ZUMA-1, the initial efficacy and safety analyses included bridging therapy use as a matching factor (TRANSCEND patients who received bridging therapy were removed). Subsequent sensitivity analyses excluded this matching factor.ResultsThe initial analysis showed similar MAIC-weighted efficacy outcomes between TRANSCEND and ZUMA-1 for overall and complete response rates (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.40 [0.56-3.49] and 1.21 [0.56-2.64], respectively) and for overall survival and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.81 [0.44-1.49] and 0.95 [0.58-1.57], respectively). MAIC-weighted safety outcomes favored liso-cel, with significantly lower odds of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.03 [0.01-0.07] and 0.08 [0.01-0.67], respectively) and study-specific neurological events (0.16 [0.08-0.33] and 0.05 [0.02-0.15], respectively). Efficacy and safety outcomes remained similar in sensitivity analyses, which did not include use of bridging therapy as a matching factor.ConclusionsAfter matching and adjusting for clinically relevant prognostic factors, liso-cel demonstrated comparable efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared with axi-cel in patients with third- or later-line relapsed or refractory LBCL.Trial registrationNCT02631044 and NCT02348216.

Dataset Information

Performance of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) for the evidence synthesis of single-arm trials with time-to-event outcomes.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Performance of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) for the evidence synthesis of single-arm trials with time-to-event outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure