Explore the vast range of titles available.

Population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) were developed in the 2010s to allow for comparisons between two treatments evaluated in different trials while accounting for differences in patient characteristics if individual patient data (IPD) are available for only one trial. Such comparisons are increasingly used in market access applications when a pharmaceutical company compares its new treatment (with IPD available) to another treatment developed by a competitor (with only aggregated data available). This study aimed to describe the characteristics of these PAICs, assess their methodology, and describe the reported results. Original articles reporting the use of at least one PAIC were searched on PubMed between January 1, 2010 and April 2, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. We included 133 publications reporting the results of 288 PAICs. Half of the articles were published on or after May 7, 2020, and 71 (53%) pertained to onco-hematology. The pharmaceutical industry was involved in 130 (98%) articles. Key methodological aspects were reported inconsistently, with only three articles adequately reporting all aspects. A total of 161 (56%) articles reported a statistically significant benefit for the treatment evaluated on IPD. Conversely, only one PAIC significantly favored the treatment evaluated on aggregated data. Although the number of published PAICs is increasing, the methodology and transparency need to be improved. Moreover, our study strongly suggests a reporting bias. This situation calls for strengthening guidelines to improve trust in PAIC results and thus their reliability in market access applications. [Display omitted] •Population-adjusted indirect comparisons have increased in popularity recently.•Most publications focused on oncologic and hematologic pathologies.•Methodology and reporting standards were insufficient.•Collected results suggest a major reporting and publication bias.•We propose some reporting guidelines to strengthen confidence in these methods.

Introduction: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, not possible. Numerous ITC techniques are described in the literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify all the relevant literature on existing ITC techniques, provide a comprehensive description of each technique and evaluate their strengths and limitations from an HTA perspective in order to develop guidance on the most appropriate method to use in different scenarios. Methods: Electronic database searches of Embase and PubMed, as well as grey literature searches, were conducted on 15 November 2021. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed papers that specifically described the methods used for different ITC techniques and were written in English. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 73 articles were included in the SLR, reporting on seven different ITC techniques. All reported techniques were forms of adjusted ITC. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was the most frequently described technique (in 79.5% of the included articles), followed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (30.1%), network meta-regression (24.7%), the Bucher method (23.3%), simulated treatment comparison (STC) (21.9%), propensity score matching (4.1%) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (4.1%). The appropriate choice of ITC technique is critical and should be based on the feasibility of a connected network, the evidence of heterogeneity between and within studies, the overall number of relevant studies and the availability of individual patient-level data (IPD). MAIC and STC were found to be common techniques in the case of single-arm studies, which are increasingly being conducted in oncology and rare diseases, whilst the Bucher method and NMA provide suitable options where no IPD is available. Conclusion: ITCs can provide alternative evidence where direct comparative evidence may be missing. ITCs are currently considered by HTA agencies on a case-by-case basis; however, their acceptability remains low. Clearer international consensus and guidance on the methods to use for different ITC techniques is needed to improve the quality of ITCs submitted to HTA agencies. ITC techniques continue to evolve quickly, and more efficient techniques may become available in the future.

Backgound Lenalidomide‐based regimens are commonly used for early relapse in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) receiving at least one prior line of therapy. In the absence of head‐to‐head comparison, matching‐adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to demonstrate efficacy and safety of isatuximab+carfilzomib+dexamethasone (Isa‐Kd) versus daratumumab + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Dara‐Rd) in RRMM. Methods Patient‐level data from IKEMA trial (Isa‐Kd, n = 179) were matched to aggregate data from POLLUX (Dara‐Rd, n = 286). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were generated by weighted Cox proportional hazard models. Odds ratios (OR), 95% CI, and p‐value were calculated for ≥very good partial response (≥VGPR) and treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results After matching, no significant differences were observed between Isa‐Kd and Dara‐Rd in baseline characteristics except for patients with >3 prior lines (0.0% vs. 4.9%). Isa‐Kd showed significantly better PFS (HR [95% CI]: 0.46 [0.24–0.86]; p = 0.0155), statistically non‐significant improvement favoring Isa‐Kd in OS (0.47 [0.20–1.09]; 0.0798), and ≥VGPR (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.89–2.64]; p = 0.1252) than Dara‐Rd. Odds of occurrence were significantly lower for some all‐grade and grade 3/4 TEAEs with Isa‐Kd than Dara‐Rd. Conclusion These results support Isa‐Kd as an efficacious treatment for early relapse in non‐lenalidomide refractory patients. Matching‐adjusted indirect comparison results for Isa‐Kd vs. Dara‐Rd: Kaplan‐Meier curves of progression‐free survival before matching and after inclusion criteria selection (A) and after matching (B); Kaplan‐Meier curves of overall survival before matching and after inclusion criteria selection (C) and after matching (D). CI, confidence interval; Dara‐Rd, daratumumab + lenalidomide + dexamethasone; HR, hazard ratio; Isa‐Kd, isatuximab + carfilzomib + dexamethasone. *Statistically significant at 0.05 level.

IntroductionA 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.MethodsIndividual 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).ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsPatients 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.

Background In the absence of randomized studies directly comparing chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies, this study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods Primary data sources included individual patient data from the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (TRANSCEND [NCT02631044]; N  = 256 for efficacy set, N  = 269 for safety set) for liso-cel and summary-level data from the ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216; N  = 101 for efficacy set, N  = 108 for safety set) for axi-cel. Inter-study differences in design, eligibility criteria, baseline characteristics, and outcomes were assessed and aligned to the extent feasible. Clinically relevant prognostic factors were adjusted in a stepwise fashion by ranked order. Since bridging therapy was allowed in TRANSCEND but not ZUMA-1, the initial efficacy and safety analyses included bridging therapy use as a matching factor (TRANSCEND patients who received bridging therapy were removed). Subsequent sensitivity analyses excluded this matching factor. Results The initial analysis showed similar MAIC-weighted efficacy outcomes between TRANSCEND and ZUMA-1 for overall and complete response rates (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.40 [0.56–3.49] and 1.21 [0.56–2.64], respectively) and for overall survival and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.81 [0.44–1.49] and 0.95 [0.58–1.57], respectively). MAIC-weighted safety outcomes favored liso-cel, with significantly lower odds of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.03 [0.01–0.07] and 0.08 [0.01–0.67], respectively) and study-specific neurological events (0.16 [0.08–0.33] and 0.05 [0.02–0.15], respectively). Efficacy and safety outcomes remained similar in sensitivity analyses, which did not include use of bridging therapy as a matching factor. Conclusions After matching and adjusting for clinically relevant prognostic factors, liso-cel demonstrated comparable efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared with axi-cel in patients with third- or later-line relapsed or refractory LBCL. Trial registration: NCT02631044 and NCT02348216

Background Anchored 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. Methods A 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. Results Despite 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. Conclusions Two-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.

Background The goal of on-demand treatment for hereditary angioedema attacks is to halt attack progression to minimize morbidity and mortality. Four on-demand treatments have been approved thus far (ecallantide, icatibant, recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor [rhC1INH], and plasma-derived C1INH). Results from the sebetralstat phase 3 KONFIDENT trial (NCT05259917) have been reported. To put these results into context without head-to-head trials, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was conducted to facilitate comparisons of efficacy and safety across treatment options. Methods Based on a systematic literature review and feasibility assessment, only the pivotal trial for intravenous rhC1INH (NCT01188564) reported necessary data for a comparable primary efficacy endpoint (time to beginning of symptom relief) to enable an ITC with oral sebetralstat. Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analyses models were conducted to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of sebetralstat and rhC1INH (NCT01188564, NCT00225147, NCT00262301). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of efficacy was performed, adjusting for baseline attack severity and demographic characteristics. Results The fixed-effects model found no significant differences in time to beginning of symptom relief between sebetralstat 300 mg and rhC1INH 50 IU/kg (hazard ratio [95% credible interval], 0.96 [0.42–2.15] to 1.19 [0.58–2.45]). After adjusting for baseline attack severity, the MAIC showed numerically favorable results with sebetralstat compared with rhC1INH, regardless of whether baseline demographics were matched. The fixed-effects model found no significant differences in treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events. All sensitivity analyses returned consistent results. Conclusions This ITC found no significant differences in time to beginning of symptom relief and overall treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events between sebetralstat and rhC1INH.

BackgroundRecently, three published phase III trials highlighted the superiority of investigational drugs compared to placebo, thus leading to their approval in the second-line setting. We report here a MAIC of second-line MKI options for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib using individual real-world data of regorafenib and aggregate data of second-line cabozantinib from the CELESTIAL trial.MethodsData from 278 patients who received regorafenib as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure for unresectable HCC were used as IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the CELESTIAL trial in the subset of patients who received sorafenib as the only prior therapy. Survival medians and rates were obtained from Kaplan–Meier curves, and differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib groups were explored through Cox regression adjusted for weights originating from MAIC.ResultsThe median OS of the weighted regorafenib group was 11.1 months (IQR: 5.6–16.4) and 11.3 (IQR: 6.7–22.4) for cabozantinib; HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.62–1.09). The median PFS of the weighted regorafenib group was 3.0 months (IQR: 1.9–4.8) and 5.5 (IQR: 2.3–9.3) for cabozantinib; HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.41–0.62).In the subgroup who received prior sorafenib for < 3 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 6.5 months (IQR: 4.7–10.9) and 9.5 months (IQR: 5.9–18.2) for cabozantinib; HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.39–1.16).In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for 3 to < 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 8.0 months (IQR: 4.2–15.2) and 11.5 (IQR: 6.5–23.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.66 (95%CI 0.42–1.02). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for ≥ 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 13.4 (IQR: 8.1–46.5) and 12.3 (IQR: 6.6–22.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.52–1.51).ConclusionOur results confirmed no differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib in terms of OS. However, in earlier progressors on prior sorafenib a larger benefit might be expected from cabozantinib treatment.

Objective: An increasing number of studies indicate that autophagy plays an important role in the pathogenesis of spinal cord injury, and that regulating autophagy can enhance recovery from spinal cord injury. However, the effect of regulating autophagy and whether autophagy is detrimental or beneficial after spinal cord injury remain unclear. Therefore, in this study we evaluated the effects of autophagy regulation on spinal cord injury in rats by direct and indirect comparison, in an effort to provide a basis for further research. Data source: Relevant literature published from inception to February 1, 2018 were included by searching Wanfang, CNKI, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OvidSP), PubMed and Google Scholar in English and Chinese. The keywords included \"autophagy\", \"spinal cord injury\", and \"rat\". Data selection: The literature included in vivo experimental studies on autophagy regulation in the treatment of spinal cord injury (including intervention pre- and post-spinal cord injury). Meta-analyses were conducted at different time points to compare the therapeutic effects of promoting or inhibiting autophagy, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Outcome measure: Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores. Results: Of the 622 studies, 33 studies of median quality were included in the analyses. Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores were higher at 1 day (MD = 1.80, 95% CI: 0.81-2.79, P = 0.0004), 3 days (MD = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.13, P < 0.00001), 1 week (MD = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.85-2.92, P < 0.00001), 2 weeks (MD = 3.26, 95% CI: 2.40-4.13, P < 0.00001), 3 weeks (MD = 3.13, 95% CI: 2.51-3.75, P < 0.00001) and 4 weeks (MD = 3.18, 95% CI: 2.43-3.92, P < 0.00001) after spinal cord injury with upregulation of autophagy compared with the control group (drug solvent control, such as saline group). Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores were higher at 1 day (MD = 6.48, 95% CI: 5.83-7.13, P < 0.00001), 2 weeks (MD = 2.43, 95% CI: 0.79-4.07, P = 0.004), 3 weeks (MD = 2.96, 95% CI: 0.09-5.84, P = 0.04) and 4 weeks (MD = 4.41, 95% CI: 1.08-7.75, P = 0.01) after spinal cord injury with downregulation of autophagy compared with the control group. Indirect comparison of upregulation and downregulation of autophagy showed no differences in Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores at 1 day (MD = −4.68, 95% CI: -5.840 to −3.496, P = 0.94644), 3 days (MD = −0.28, 95% CI: −2.231-1.671, P = 0.99448), 1 week (MD = 1.83, 95% CI: 0.0076-3.584, P = 0.94588), 2 weeks (MD = 0.81, 95% CI: −0.850-2.470, P = 0.93055), 3 weeks (MD = 0.17, 95% CI: −2.771-3.111, P = 0.99546) or 4 weeks (MD = -1.23, 95% CI: −4.647-2.187, P = 0.98264) compared with the control group. Conclusion: Regulation of autophagy improves neurological function, whether it is upregulated or downregulated. There was no difference between upregulation and downregulation of autophagy in the treatment of spinal cord injury. The variability in results among the studies may be associated with differences in research methods, the lack of clearly defined autophagy characteristics after spinal cord injury, and the limited autophagy monitoring techniques. Thus, methods should be standardized, and the dynamic regulation of autophagy should be examined in future studies.