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: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:BackgroundFor nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), 3 drugs under patent protection-apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide-were approved based on randomized, placebo-controlled trials; 1 drug with generic availability, abiraterone acetate, showed efficacy in a single-arm trial and is commonly prescribed. Lacking head-to-head trials, the optimal treatment for nmCRPC is unknown, despite widely varied treatment costs. We compared the efficacy and safety of nmCRPC treatments.MethodsWe searched bibliographic databases, regulatory documents, and trial registries for nmCRPC trials. We included published results and, when available, original data. We performed matching-adjusted indirect comparison and network meta-analysis and compared treatments regarding metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and serious adverse events.ResultsWe analyzed 5 trials with 4360 participants. Compared with placebo, abiraterone acetate engendered the lowest hazard of metastasis and death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.12-0.41), followed by apalutamide (HR = 0.28, 95% CrI = 0.23-0.34), enzalutamide (HR = 0.30, 95% CrI = 0.25-0.36), and darolutamide (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.34-0.49); darolutamide led to the lowest hazard of death (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.53-0.90), followed by enzalutamide (HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.61-0.87) and apalutamide (HR = 0.75, 95% CrI = 0.59-0.95); darolutamide resulted in the lowest odds of serious adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 1.32, 95% CrI = 1.02-1.70), followed by enzalutamide (OR =1.43, 95% CrI = 1.08-1.89), apalutamide (OR = 1.58, 95% CrI = 1.23-2.03), and abiraterone acetate (OR = 1.94, 95% CrI = 1.17-3.22).ConclusionsFor nmCRPC, darolutamide offered optimal efficacy and safety among approved drugs, and abiraterone acetate may offer comparable metastasis-free survival benefit with cost savings from generic availability. Future research is needed to more fully examine the benefit of abiraterone acetate.

Project description:IntroductionLebrikizumab and dupilumab are monoclonal antibodies approved for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Both have demonstrated efficacy and safety over the 16-week SOLOs and ADvocate trials. However, AD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disease, and the long-term maintenance of efficacy is critical for achieving disease control from the perspective of patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. This study aims to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and dupilumab every week or every 2 weeks (QW/Q2W) among adult patients who have achieved treatment efficacy following the induction period of 16 weeks.MethodsLebrikizumab's efficacy was assessed using individual patient data (IPD) from the ADvocate 1 and 2 monotherapy trials. Dupilumab's efficacy was evaluated using aggregate data from the adult-exclusive SOLO-CONTINUE trial. Due to the absence of a common comparator trial arm, we employed an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), a robust methodology widely accepted by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. This re-weights ADvocate IPD to align with SOLO-CONTINUE's prognostic factors and effect modifiers. We compared lebrikizumab's adjusted outcomes with dupilumab outcomes at week 52, focusing on 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline (EASI-75), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, and overall adverse event (AE) rates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test various combinations of matching variables.ResultsAdults on lebrikizumab Q4W were more likely to maintain IGA 0/1 through the 36-week maintenance period (weeks 16-52) compared with those on dupilumab QW/Q2W [risk ratio (RR) 1.334; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.74; p = 0.035]. Both treatments demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of EASI-75 maintenance (RR 0.937; 95% CI 0.78-1.13; p = 0.490) and similar AE rates (RR 1.052; 95% CI 0.90-1.23; p = 0.526). Sensitivity analyses substantiated these findings.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that lebrikizumab Q4W may provide equal or superior long-term maintenance of efficacy measured with EASI-75 and IGA 0/1 compared with dupilumab QW/Q2W, with the advantage of requiring less frequent doses.

Project description:IntroductionGiven the relatively short life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), quality of life (QOL) plays a significant role in treatment selection. This analysis aimed to compare time to deterioration (TTD) in QOL with transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and atezolizumab-bevacizumab, as well as sorafenib, in advanced and unresectable HCC.MethodsPatient-level data from SARAH (TARE using SIR-Spheres® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib) and aggregate data from IMbrave150 (atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus sorafenib) randomized controlled trials were used to conduct an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Patients with a Child-Pugh score B in SARAH were excluded to align with exclusion criteria in IMbrave150. To identify potential effect modifiers for adjustment, the literature was searched and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were implemented using SARAH data. Patients from SARAH were then weighted to balance with baseline characteristics from IMbrave150. Median TTD in QOL and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated.ResultsFour potential effect modifiers were identified and used for adjustment: cause of disease (viral/non-viral), macrovascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and alpha-fetoprotein level. The MAIC included 217 patients from SARAH (TARE = 94; sorafenib = 123). Median TTD in QOL was 11.23 and 8.64 months for atezolizumab-bevacizumab and TARE, respectively (HR = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.50; p = 0.725). A sensitivity analysis was conducted adjusting for cause of disease defined as hepatitis B/hepatitis C/non-viral: median TTD in QOL was higher for TARE compared with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (19.88 vs 11.23 months; HR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.36-1.19; p = 0.163). Sorafenib resulted in the shortest TTD in QOL, with statistically significant differences in both base case and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionTARE using SIR-Spheres may achieve similar TTD in QOL compared with atezolizumab-bevacizumab, as the analyses found no statistically significant differences between these two interventions. Both TARE using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab-bevacizumab seem to be more efficacious than sorafenib in maintaining QOL.

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

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

Tweets