Dataset Information

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Upadacitinib Versus Tofacitinib in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Upadacitinib 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).

Methods

The 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.

Results

At 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.

Conclusions

Compared 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).

SUBMITTER: Edwards CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7991064 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Objectives.To analyze the budget impact of upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg + methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD-IR) from the perspective of social security and the private health sector in Argentina.Materials and methods.A budget impact analysis model was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 adults with health insurance coverage who were diagnosed with RA over a 5-year time horizon. The model parameters were obtained through literature review and validated by local experts. The costs are expressed in 2024 US dollars (USD).Results.The introduction of UPA 15 mg + MTX for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA and cDMARD-IR resulted in minimal increase, with a five-year total cumulative incremental cost of USD 1,855 for social security and USD 1,812 for the private health sector, representing 2% of the total budget. The acquisition cost of UPA was the most influential variable in the sensitivity analysis.Conclusions.The introduction of UPA 15 mg + MTX for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA and cDMARD-IR can provide an effective treatment option with a minimal increase in costs for the healthcare system in Argentina, which is especially important in developing countries where health system budgets are more limited. Providing evidence-based estimates is a valuable tool for informing healthcare policies and can help policymakers make informed decisions about the allocation of healthcare resources to improve patient outcomes while also managing costs.Motivation for the study. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that hasn’t cure, so it’s important to know the budget impact of treatment with upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg + methotrexate (MTX) in patients with moderate to severe RA who didn’t respond well to conventional antirheumatic drugs. Main findings. UPA + MTX would entail a minimal increase in costs for the healthcare system in Argentina, potentially making this effective treatment option more accessible to patients with RA. Access to this treatment can improve the outcome of patients with RA. Public health implications. In resource-constrained settings such as Argentina, providing evidence-based cost estimates can help healthcare managers allocate resources efficiently while improving patient outcomes. This study provides evidence to inform healthcare policies and decisions regarding the inclusion of UPA + MTX in treatment guidelines or formularies for RA management.

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: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: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:IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit-risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk-benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA).MethodsPost-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria-PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles.ResultsUPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7-12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9-16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9-15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA.ConclusionIn patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster).

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.