Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Cabozantinib and Ramucirumab After Sorafenib for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cabozantinib and ramucirumab are approved for the treatment of adults with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following prior sorafenib treatment; ramucirumab is restricted to use in patients with serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥ 400 ng/mL. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison evaluated the efficacy and safety of both drugs after sorafenib in patients with HCC and AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL.

Methods

Individual patient data (IPD) from the CELESTIAL trial (cabozantinib) and population-level data from the REACH-2 trial (ramucirumab) were used. To align with REACH-2, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only and had baseline serum AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL. The IPD from CELESTIAL were weighted to balance the distribution of 11 effect-modifying baseline characteristics with those of REACH-2. Overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared for the CELESTIAL (matching-adjusted) and REACH-2 populations using weighted Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and parametric (OS, Weibull; PFS, log-logistic) modeling. Rates of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and TRAE-related discontinuations were also compared.

Results

After matching and weighting, baseline characteristics were balanced between populations (REACH-2, N = 292; CELESTIAL, effective sample size = 105). Weighted KM estimates for OS (median [95% CI]) were not significantly different between cabozantinib and ramucirumab (10.6 [9.5-17.3] months versus 8.7 [7.3-10.8] months; p = 0.104), but PFS was significantly longer for cabozantinib than for ramucirumab (5.5 [4.6-7.4] months versus 2.8 [2.7-4.1] months; p = 0.016). Parametric modeling results were consistent with the weighted KM analysis. Rates of some grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were lower with ramucirumab than with cabozantinib; however, TRAE-related discontinuation rates were similar (p = 0.271).

Conclusion

In this MAIC, cabozantinib significantly prolonged median PFS compared with ramucirumab after prior sorafenib treatment in patients with HCC and AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL; rates of some grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were lower with ramucirumab than cabozantinib but related discontinuation rates were not significantly different between treatments.

Trial registration

Clinical trials.gov identifiers: CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426) and REACH-2 trial (NCT02435433). These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

SUBMITTER: Trojan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8107171 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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).