Aim: Diroximel fumarate (DRF), ozanimod (OZA) and interferon beta-1a (IFN) are disease-modifying therapies approved for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. No randomized trials have compared DRF versus OZA and IFN. We compared DRF versus OZA and DRF versus IFN using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for efficacy outcomes, including annualized relapse rate (ARR), 12- and 24-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) and absence of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions and new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Patients & methods: We used individual patient data from EVOLVE-MS-1 (NCT02634307), a 2-year, open-label, single-arm, phase III study of DRF (n = 1057) and aggregate data from RADIANCE (NCT02047734), a 2-year, double-blind, phase III study that compared OZA 1 mg once daily (n = 433) and intramuscular IFN 30 μg once weekly (n = 441). To account for cross-trial differences, the EVOLVE-MS-1 population was restricted to those who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RADIANCE, then weighted to match the average baseline characteristics of RADIANCE. Results: After weighting, DRF and OZA had similar ARRs (0.18 and 0.17, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs OZA) of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.04 to 0.06). DRF had a lower ARR than IFN (0.18 and 0.28, respectively), with a rate difference (DRF vs IFN) of -0.10 (95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04) after weighting. Outcomes for 12- and 24-week CDP favored DRF versus OZA; 12-week CDP favored DRF versus IFN, but there was not strong evidence favoring DRF over IFN for 24-week CDP. Compared with OZA and IFN, DRF had higher proportions of patients without Gd+ T1 lesions and patients without new/newly enlarging T2 lesions. Conclusion: Disability progression and radiological outcomes were favorable for DRF versus OZA, although no differences were observed in ARR. Clinical and radiological outcomes generally favored DRF versus IFN. These findings may be informative for patients and clinicians considering different treatment options for MS.

BACKGROUND: Gastritis is one of the most frequently diagnosed diseases requiring medical treatment in South Korea. Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has been approved for treating gastritis and erosive esophagitis. Meanwhile, rebamipide is the most commonly used mucoprotective agent for acute and chronic gastritis in real-world settings in South Korea. However, there have been no studies comparing the efficacy of these two drugs yet.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of fexuprazan with that of rebamipide for acute and chronic gastritis.
METHODS: This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Individual patient data from a phase III study of fexuprazan (10 mg BID) were compared with cumulative data from two matching studies of rebamipide (100 mg TID). Erosion improvement and healing rates were compared between two weeks of fexurapan, two weeks of rebamipide, and four weeks of rebamipide. The two main outcome variables were presented as percentages, and the risk differences (RD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the relative treatment effects.
RESULTS: In the primary analysis, the erosion improvement and healing rates after a two-week treatment with fexuprazan were 64.5% and 53.2%, respectively, while a two-week treatment with rebamipide resulted in erosion improvement and healing rates of 43.6% (RD: 21.0%; 95%CI: 9.6-32.3; P < 0.01) and 35.6% (RD: 17.6%; 95%CI: 6.1-29.2; P = 0.003), respectively. In the additional analysis, the erosion improvement and healing rates for the two-week fexuprazan treatment (64.2% and 51.2%, respectively) were similar to those obtained during a four-week treatment with rebamipide (60.6%; RD: 3.6%; 95%CI: -9.8, 17.0; P = 0.600 and 53.5%; RD: -2.3%; 95%CI: -16.1, 11.5; P = 0.744, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The two-week fexuprazan treatment was superior to the two-week rebamipide treatment and similar to the four-week rebamipide treatment for patients with gastritis.

BACKGROUND: A previous network meta-analysis established 16-week relative efficacy with bimekizumab, an inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, versus other treatments for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), including the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab and ixekizumab. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) assessed 52-week relative efficacy of bimekizumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab.
METHODS: Individual patient data from BE MOBILE 2 (bimekizumab 160 mg; N = 220) were matched to pooled summary data from MEASURE 1/2/3/4 (secukinumab 150 mg), MEASURE 3 (secukinumab 300 mg; escalated dose for inadequate responders), COAST-V (ixekizumab) and COAST-V/-W (ixekizumab). BE MOBILE 2 patients were reweighted using propensity score weights based on age, sex, ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, weight, baseline ASDAS and BASFI (secukinumab) and baseline BASDAI (ixekizumab), and 52-week efficacy outcomes from the trial recalculated. Odds ratios (OR) or mean difference for unanchored comparisons are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: At week 52, MAIC demonstrated that patients may have higher likelihood of improvement in key efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus secukinumab 150 mg (e.g., ASAS40: [OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.05, 2.10); p = 0.026]; effective sample size [ESS] = 177). Differences in 52-week efficacy outcomes between bimekizumab and secukinumab 300 mg dose escalation were non-significant (ESS = 120). Bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg comparisons (COAST-V only; ESS = 84) also suggested that differences were non-significant for most key efficacy outcomes. Other ixekizumab comparisons (COAST-V/-W; ESS = 45) suggested bimekizumab may have higher comparative efficacy for many of the same efficacy outcomes, however ixekizumab analyses were limited by poor population overlap, likely due to the greater proportion of patients with previous TNFi exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with bimekizumab may have a higher likelihood of achieving improved longer-term efficacy versus secukinumab 150 mg, suggesting bimekizumab may be a favorable therapeutic option for r-axSpA. Differences in efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg were mostly non-significant, depending on the populations considered.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) patients, while mosunetuzumab was the first bispecific monoclonal antibody approved in this population. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, this study sought to conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety of these treatments in 3rd line or higher (3L+) FL. The evidence base consisted of individual patient data (IPD) of all enrolled patients, regardless of infusion status, from the single-arm axi-cel trial, ZUMA-5 (NCT03105336), and aggregate data from the mosunetuzumab FL trial (NCT02500407) from publications identified through a systematic review. Efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR). Analyses used independent central review for both trials, where possible. Safety outcomes were cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurological events (NE), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Unanchored MAICs were conducted to align ZUMA-5 to the patient characteristics of the mosunetuzumab trial. For each outcome, prognostic factors were identified a priori through quantitative analysis and clinical experts. For time-to-event outcomes, hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox regression using IPD from ZUMA-5 and pseudo-IPD extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots for mosunetuzumab. Patient characteristics were well-aligned between trials leading to large effective-sample sizes after matching, ranging from 93.4 to 115.5, for ZUMA-5 (n = 127). In comparisons to mosunetuzumab (n = 90), axi-cel was associated with improved PFS (HR: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.62) and DoR (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.27-0.76). Similarly, axi-cel led to higher ORR (OR: 3.87; 95% CI: 1.53-9.76) and CRR (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.50-5.26). Although axi-cel was associated with a higher rate of all-grade CRS (OR: 5.54; 95% CI: 2.63-8.94) and NEs (OR: 3.54; 95% CI: 1.28-9.83), differences in grade ≥3 CRS and TRAEs were not statistically significant. Findings from this study show improved efficacy and more durable response for the treatment of 3L+ R/R FL with axi-cel relative to mosunetuzumab, with increased odds of all-grade CRS and NE, but not G3+ CRS and TRAEs.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug options available for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis (AS), also known as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, it is of clinical interest to determine the comparative efficacy of these advanced therapies among populations with differing prior advanced therapy exposure. This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of approved advanced therapies for AS in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve and, separately, in TNFi inadequate responder/intolerant (-IR) populations.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials for TNFis, interleukin-17A inhibitors, and Janus kinase inhibitors used as advanced therapies for active AS. Clinical efficacy was considered by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score low disease activity (ASDAS LDA) criteria, defined as ASDAS score less than 2.1, among approved therapies. Comparative efficacy in the TNFi-naïve population was assessed utilizing network meta-analysis, while comparative efficacy in the TNFi-IR population was assessed utilizing matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Odds ratios were calculated, from which absolute rates and numbers needed to treat were calculated. Safety in the form of trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was reviewed.
RESULTS: Among the TNFi-naïve population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate between week 12 and 16 was highest for patients treated with upadacitinib (52.8%) and lowest for patients treated with placebo (11.6%). Among the TNFi-IR population, the estimated ASDAS LDA rate was 41.3% for patients treated with upadacitinib and 17.5% for patients treated with ixekizumab. The trial-reported and placebo-adjusted rates of discontinuation due to AEs were generally low across included advanced therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: Relative to other assessed therapies, upadacitinib demonstrated greater clinical efficacy per ASDAS LDA in the treatment of active AS in both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR populations. Head-to-head and real-world data comparisons are warranted to both validate these findings and aid medical decision makers.

UNASSIGNED: Several oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). In the absence of head-to-head randomized data, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of ozanimod versus other oral DMTs in RRMS.
UNASSIGNED: To synthesize results from the published MAICs of ozanimod and other oral DMTs for 2-year outcomes in RRMS.
UNASSIGNED: Published MAICs involving ozanimod for the treatment of RRMS were identified. Extracted data elements included efficacy [annualized relapse rate (ARR), confirmed disability progression (CDP), and brain volume loss] and safety [adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, and infection] outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The four MAIC studies identified compared ozanimod with fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and ponesimod. All comparisons were adjusted for differences in age, sex, relapses within the previous year, Expanded Disability Status Scale score, and percentage of patients with prior DMTs. Outcomes at 2 years were analyzed based on comparisons that lacked a common comparator arm. Ozanimod was associated with significantly lower ARR versus teriflunomide [ARR ratio (95% CI) 0.73 (0.62, 0.84) and DMF 0.80 (0.67, 0.97)], with no significant difference versus fingolimod or ponesimod. The proportions of patients treated with ozanimod or fingolimod had similar 3- and 6-month CDP. Compared with teriflunomide and DMF, ozanimod was associated with a significantly lower risk of 3-month CDP; 6-month CDP was comparable. Ozanimod was associated with significantly lower rates of any AE and AEs leading to discontinuation compared with the other oral DMTs evaluated. Ozanimod also had significantly lower rates of SAEs versus teriflunomide and DMF and lower rates of reported infection outcomes versus fingolimod and ponesimod.
UNASSIGNED: Compared with the other oral DMTs evaluated in MAICs, ozanimod was associated with a favorable safety profile and improved or comparable efficacy outcomes.
An indirect comparison of ozanimod vs other oral treatments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis The many treatment options available for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) make treatment decisions difficult. While direct head-to-head treatment comparisons provide useful information, these studies are not available for every pair of treatments. Indirect comparisons of published study results can help fill that evidence gap. A technique called matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) offers a statistically robust way to compare safety/efficacy outcomes from different studies by accounting for important differences across the studies. We collected data from four MAIC studies that compared 2-year treatment outcomes in patients treated with ozanimod versus those treated with fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate (DMF), or ponesimod. Each study accounted for differences in age, sex, relapses within the previous year, disability status, and previous therapy use. We found ozanimod was either better than or similar to other treatments based on the outcomes measured. The annual rate of RRMS relapse was lower for patients treated with ozanimod than for patients treated with teriflunomide or DMF and similar for patients treated with ponesimod or fingolimod. Ozanimod-treated patients saw their RRMS progress at rates similar to those treated with fingolimod at 3 and 6 months and teriflunomide and DMF at 6 months; RRMS was more likely to progress at 3 months in patients treated with teriflunomide and DMF versus those treated with ozanimod. Our analyses also found that patients treated with ozanimod had lower rates of side effects, including those serious enough to cause treatment discontinuation, compared with patients receiving other treatments. By comparing findings from existing MAIC studies, we found that patients with RRMS treated with ozanimod had fewer side effects and better or similar efficacy outcomes compared with patients who received other treatments for RRMS. These findings can potentially inform treatment decisions for patients with RRMS.

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a severe genetic neuromuscular disease characterized by a loss of motor neurons and progressive muscle weakness. Children with untreated type 1 SMA never sit independently and require increasing levels of ventilatory support as the disease progresses. Without intervention, and lacking ventilatory support, death typically occurs before the age of 2 years. There are currently no head-to-head trials comparing available treatments in SMA. Indirect treatment comparisons are therefore needed to provide information on the relative efficacy and safety of SMA treatments for healthcare decision-making.
METHODS: The long-term efficacy and safety of risdiplam versus nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA was evaluated using indirect treatment comparison methodology to adjust for differences between population baseline characteristics, to reduce any potential bias in the comparative analysis. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using risdiplam data from 58 children in FIREFISH (NCT02913482) and published aggregate nusinersen data from 81 children obtained from the ENDEAR (NCT02193074) and SHINE (NCT02594124) clinical trials with at least 36 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: Children with type 1 SMA treated with risdiplam had a 78% reduction in the rate of death, an 81% reduction in the rate of death or permanent ventilation, and a 57% reduction in the rate of serious adverse events compared with children treated with nusinersen. Children treated with risdiplam also had a 45% higher rate of achieving a Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination, Module 2 motor milestone response and a 186% higher rate of achieving a ≥ 4-point improvement in Children\'s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders compared with children treated with nusinersen.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term data supported risdiplam as a superior alternative to nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA. Video abstract available for this article. Video abstract (MP4 184542 KB).
Risdiplam and nusinersen are two approved treatments for patients with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). There are currently no head-to-head trials that compare the outcomes of these treatments in patients. This study conducted a statistical comparison of the efficacy and safety of risdiplam and nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA who received treatment for at least 36 months. Risdiplam data were collected from 58 children who participated in the FIREFISH trial (NCT02913482). Published combined data were collected from 81 children treated with nusinersen who participated in the ENDEAR (NCT02193074) and SHINE (NCT02594124) trials. Outcomes from the two studies were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methodology. MAIC adjusts for differences in baseline characteristics between patients in two trials to make the populations more similar and reduce bias in the comparison. Results suggested that children with type 1 SMA treated with risdiplam had a 78% reduction in the rate of death and an 81% reduction in the rate of death or permanent ventilation compared with children treated with nusinersen. With risdiplam, children also had a higher rate of achieving motor function responses, and a longer time to the first serious adverse event compared with children treated with nusinersen. These results support risdiplam as a superior alternative to nusinersen in children with type 1 SMA over 36 months of follow-up. Access to long-term data beyond 36 months would allow for additional indirect comparisons between SMA treatments. These comparisons are key to guiding treatment decision-making in the absence of head-to-head trials.

BACKGROUND: Tralokinumab and dupilumab are biological agents licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adult patients who are candidates for systemic treatment. However, no head-to-head studies of their efficacy have been conducted. This study indirectly compared the efficacy of tralokinumab and dupilumab, both in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), at week 32.
METHODS: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient data (IPD) from the ECZTRA 3 tralokinumab trial and aggregate data from the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS dupilumab trial. IPD were selected by applying inclusion criteria from LIBERTY AD CHRONOS and weighting to match summary baseline characteristics-age, sex, race, body mass index, disease duration, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator\'s Global Assessment (IGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index-of patients treated with dupilumab. Week 32 outcomes of interest were 50%, 75% or 90% improvements in EASI (EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90), IGA scores of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1), ≥ 4-point improvement in worst daily pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) score, and mean improvements in DLQI and the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).
RESULTS: After matching, tralokinumab and dupilumab, both in combination with TCS, showed similar efficacy across clinical response endpoints at week 32 (IGA 0/1, tralokinumab 49.9% vs dupilumab 39.3%; EASI-50, 78.9% vs 77.5%; EASI-75, 71.5% vs 71.9%; EASI-90, 53.3% vs 56.2%). The mean change from baseline in DLQI was statistically significantly larger in the matched tralokinumab plus TCS population than in the dupilumab plus TCS arm (- 12.1 vs - 10.4, p = 0.005). Changes in POEM and worst daily pruritus NRS were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis demonstrate that, in combination with TCS, tralokinumab and dupilumab have similar efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD at 32 weeks of therapy.

Aim: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed to compare axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and lisocabtagene (liso-cel) for treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adult patients after ≥2 lines of therapy in Japan. Materials & methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the partition survival mixture cure model based on the ZUMA-1 trial and adjusted to the JULIET and TRANSCEND trials using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. Results & conclusion: Axi-cel was associated with greater incremental life years (3.13 and 2.85) and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (2.65 and 2.24), thus generated lower incremental direct medical costs (-$976.29 [-¥137,657] and -$242.00 [-¥34,122]), compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel. Axi-cel was cost-effective option compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel from a Japanese payer\'s perspective.
[Box: see text].