Dataset Information

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 vs two recombinant factor VIII for the prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A.

ABSTRACT: No head-to-head trials comparing recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products currently exist. This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) study of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 with antihemophilic factor (recombinant) plasma/albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM) and turoctocog alfa for the prophylaxis of severe hemophilia A.A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials of rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. Comparisons were conducted using BAY 81-8973 individual patient data (IPD) from LEOPOLD trials and published data from rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa trials. Differences in outcome reporting were reconciled using transformation of BAY 81-8973 IPD. Patients in pooled LEOPOLD trials were weighted to match baseline characteristics for rAHF-PFM or turoctocog alfa trials using MAICs. After matching, annualized bleed rates (ABRs) were compared using weighted t-tests.Two rAHF-PFM trials and one turoctocog alfa trial were identified. In these trials, rFVIIIs were dosed thrice weekly or every other day; in LEOPOLD trials, BAY 81-8973 was dosed twice- or thrice weekly. Three MAICs were conducted because the two rAHF-PFM trials calculated ABRs differently, matching for age, race, and weight (turoctocog alfa only). BAY 81-8973 had similar ABR of all bleeds vs rAHF-PFM (two trials: 4.8 vs 6.3, 1.9 vs 1.8 [square root transform]) and lower ABR of spontaneous bleeds and trauma bleeds (2.6 vs 4.1, 2.1 vs 4.7; both P<0.05). BAY 81-8973 showed lower ABR of all bleeds and spontaneous bleeds vs turoctocog alfa (4.3 vs 6.5, 2.8 vs 4.3; both P<0.05) and similar ABR of trauma bleeds (1.5 vs 1.6). In subgroup analysis, twice-weekly BAY 81-8973 had similar ABRs of all bleeds, spontaneous bleeds, and trauma bleeds compared to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa.This indirect comparison found that prophylaxis with BAY 81-8973, even including the lower frequency of two times a week and lower factor VIII consumption, has efficacy comparable to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa, which were dosed thrice weekly or every other day. The use of IPD enabled adjustments for differences in calculation of ABRs and population characteristics between trials.

SUBMITTER: Pocoski J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4938137 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 vs two recombinant factor VIII for the prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A.

Pocoski Jennifer J Li Nanxin N Ayyagari Rajeev R Church Nikki N Maas Enriquez Monika M Xiang Quer Q Kelkar Sneha S Du Ella X EX Wu Eric Q EQ Xie Jipan J

Journal of blood medicine 20160704

<h4>Background</h4>No head-to-head trials comparing recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products currently exist. This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) study of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 with antihemophilic factor (recombinant) plasma/albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM) and turoctocog alfa for the prophylaxis of severe hemophilia A.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials of rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. Comparisons were conducted using BAY 81-8973 ...[more]

PMID: 27445511

Similar Datasets

Project description:Standard methods for indirect comparisons and network meta-analysis are based on aggregate data, with the key assumption that there is no difference between the trials in the distribution of effect-modifying variables. Methods which relax this assumption are becoming increasingly common for submissions to reimbursement agencies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). These methods use individual patient data from a subset of trials to form population-adjusted indirect comparisons between treatments, in a specific target population. Recently proposed population adjustment methods include the Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) and the Simulated Treatment Comparison (STC). Despite increasing popularity, MAIC and STC remain largely untested. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity about exactly how and when they should be applied in practice, and even whether the results are relevant to the decision problem. There is therefore a real and present risk that the assumptions being made in one submission to a reimbursement agency are fundamentally different to-or even incompatible with-the assumptions being made in another for the same indication. We describe the assumptions required for population-adjusted indirect comparisons, and demonstrate how these may be used to generate comparisons in any given target population. We distinguish between anchored and unanchored comparisons according to whether a common comparator arm is used or not. Unanchored comparisons make much stronger assumptions, which are widely regarded as infeasible. We provide recommendations on how and when population adjustment methods should be used, and the supporting analyses that are required to provide statistically valid, clinically meaningful, transparent and consistent results for the purposes of health technology appraisal. Simulation studies are needed to examine the properties of population adjustment methods and their robustness to breakdown of assumptions.

Project description:BackgroundBrexanolone injection, the first therapy approved by the US FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (PPD) in adults, has been shown to produce a significantly greater decrease in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score than placebo in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with PPD.ObjectivesGiven the rapid effect of brexanolone injection (within 60 h) sustained throughout the length of the trials (30 days), we sought to compare its efficacy data against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the class of antidepressants most commonly prescribed for PPD, using HAM-D and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) outcomes from currently available RCTs.MethodsWe extracted data from 26 studies identified in a systematic literature review of pharmacological and pharmacological/nonpharmacological combination therapies in PPD. Six studies were suitable to form evidence networks through which to perform indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) of HAM-D and EPDS outcomes between brexanolone and SSRIs. Having assessed the comparability and suitability of the available evidence for analysis, we discovered significant heterogeneity in the study designs, most notably in the placebo arms of the trials. We therefore conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between brexanolone and the placebo arms of comparator studies, subsequently using the MAIC results of brexanolone versus placebo, and results for SSRIs versus placebo, to form ITCs of brexanolone versus SSRIs at three separate time points-day 3, week 4 and last observation. ITCs were calculated as the differences in change from baseline (CFB) in HAM-D and, separately, CFB in EPDS, between treatments, and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsFor all time points, MAICs showed larger differences in CFB for brexanolone compared with SSRIs. Differences (95% CIs) between brexanolone and SSRIs were 12.79 (8.04-17.53) [day 3], 5.87 (- 1.62 to 13.37) [week 4] and 0.97 (- 6.35 to 8.30) [last observation] for the HAM-D. For the EPDS, the differences in CFB were 7.98 (5.32-10.64) [day 3], 6.35 (3.13-9.57) [week 4] and 4.05 (0.79-7.31) [last observation]. Other analytical approaches are also presented to demonstrate the similarity of results, using a network meta-analysis approach, and the importance of using the MAIC method to control for the important heterogeneity between placebo arms.ConclusionsAcknowledging the limitations of ITCs and this evidence base, when compared with SSRIs, these analyses suggest that brexanolone demonstrated larger differences in CFB for both patient- and clinician-reported PPD outcomes and at all investigated time points after adjusting for differences between placebos in the included studies.

Project description:IntroductionCrisaborole topical ointment, 2%, is a nonsteroidal, topical anti-inflammatory phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). The objective of the current analysis was to compare the efficacy of crisaborole 2% relative to pimecrolimus 1%, tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD by comparing improvement in Investigator's Static Global Assessment scores ( (ISGA scores of 0/1 indicating "clear or almost clear"). ISGA was selected as the primary efficacy outcome given the US Food and Drug Administration's recommendations on the use of ISGA for assessment of global severity in AD and to align with efficacy measurements in the crisaborole registration trials. Safety endpoints could not be analyzed due to differences in outcome definitions across studies.MethodsEfficacy of crisaborole was evaluated using individual patient data (IPD) from two pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and efficacy of comparators was evaluated using published RCTs included in a previous network meta-analysis. Vehicle controls were not comparable due to differences in ingredients and population imbalance and, therefore, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used, which reweighted IPD for crisaborole to estimate absolute response in comparator populations.ResultsThe odds of achieving an improvement in ISGA score was higher with crisaborole 2% versus pimecrolimus 1% (odds ratio [OR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.85; effective sample size = 627, reduced from 1021; p value < 0.001) and for crisaborole 2% versus tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.09-2.05; effective sample size = 311, reduced from 1021; p = 0.012).ConclusionThe unanchored MAIC suggests that the odds of achieving an improvement in ISGA score is greater with crisaborole 2% than with pimecrolimus 1% or tacrolimus 0.03% in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD. These results are consistent with findings from the previously published network meta-analysis, which used a different methodology for performing indirect treatment comparisons.

Project description:ObjectiveRimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab.MethodsMatching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12.ResultsWhen matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains.ConclusionsWhen adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

Dataset Information

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 vs two recombinant factor VIII for the prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A.

Publications

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 vs two recombinant factor VIII for the prophylactic treatment of severe hemophilia A.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets