[Assessment and positioning of drugs as equivalent therapeutic alternatives]

[Translated article] Adjusted indirect comparison of zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform an adjusted indirect treatment comparison, according to the cytogenetic profile, in terms of efficacy between different Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors used as first-line monotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Safety outcomes considered of interest were also evaluated to establish whether these options can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in Pubmed and Embase on November 10, 2022 for phase III clinical trials studying Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in monotherapy in the first-line setting for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Results were filtered according to whether the combination of bendamustine and rituximab was used as comparator and whether they had similar populations and follow-up times. Subgroup results were meta-analyzed according to mutational characteristics by classifying patients into high and low cytogenetic risk. An adjusted indirect comparison was developed using Bucher's method. Possible therapeutic equivalence was determined by applying the guide to equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

RESULT

Of the 39 studies obtained in the review, 2 clinical trials were selected: 1 for zanubrutinib and 1 for ibrutinib. The remaining studies were not included because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The results obtained in the adjusted indirect treatment comparison for both cytogenetic risk subgroups showed no statistically significant differences. The most relevant safety differences were atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and cardiovascular events in patients treated with ibrutinib and higher incidence of secondary cancers in patients treated with zanubrutinib. Applying the equivalent therapeutic alternatives guideline criteria, both treatments cannot be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming the uncertainty associated with the adjusted indirect comparison, zanubrutinib could be considered equivalent in efficacy to ibrutinib, however, the presence of differentiating safety features precludes assigning the 2 alternatives as equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

Adjusted indirect comparison of zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform an adjusted indirect treatment comparison, according to the cytogenetic profile, in terms of efficacy between different Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors used as first-line monotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Safety outcomes considered of interest were also evaluated to establish whether these options can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in Pubmed and Embase on 10 November 2022 for phase III clinical trials studying Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors in monotherapy in the first-line setting for CLL. Results were filtered according to whether the combination of bendamustine and rituximab was used as comparator and whether they had similar populations and follow-up times. Subgroup results were meta-analyzed according to mutational characteristics by classifying patients into high and low cytogenetic risk. An adjusted indirect comparison was developed using Bucher's method. Possible therapeutic equivalence was determined by applying the guide to equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

RESULT

Of the 39 studies obtained in the review, two clinical trials were selected: one for zanubrutinib and one for ibrutinib. The remaining studies were not included because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The results obtained in the adjusted indirect treatment comparison for both cytogenetic risk subgroups showed no statistically significant differences. The most relevant safety differences were auricular fibrillation, hypertension and cardiovascular events in patients treated with ibrutinib and higher incidence of secondary cancers in patients treated with zanubrutinib. Applying the ATE guideline criteria, both treatments cannot be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming the uncertainty associated with the adjusted indirect comparison, zanubrutinib could be considered equivalent in efficacy to ibrutinib, however, the presence of differentiating safety features precludes assigning the two alternatives as equivalent therapeutic alternatives.

Are all JAK inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis equivalent? An adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib

INTRODUCTION

Comparisons of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs are lacking. We assessed the relative efficacy and safety of four JAKi (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib) in this context.

METHOD

We performed an adjusted indirect comparison (IC) of randomized clinical trials using Bucher's method with an IC and mixed calculator. Endpoints were Disease Activity Score C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and American College of Rheumatology-20 (ACR20). Equivalence was assessed using the equivalent therapeutic alternatives (ETA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We included four of 133 potentially relevant studies. IC showed no statistically significant differences between the four JAKi regarding DAS28-CRP < 3.2. Results were similar in terms of ACR20 except for tofacitinib showing lower efficacy than upadacitinib (RAR -18.4% [IC95% -33.4 to -3.5], p=0.0157). Statistically significant differences were related to the relevant difference for tofacitinib in both endpoints. Despite no statistical differences for baricitinib, we observed a probably clinically relevant difference regarding DAS28-CRP. Probably clinically relevant differences were found for tofacitinib vs. upadacitinib in both endpoints, and for baricitinib vs. upadacitinib in DAS28-CRP. Safety, drug-drug interactions, and convenience considerations did not modify the result of therapeutic equivalence assessment based on efficacy data.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our results show that filgotinib and upadacitinib are ETA. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are also ETA due to a lack of clear differences and for showing superiority over placebo. The results for tofacitinib and upadacitinib show some inconsistency and more data are needed. Key Points • To date, neither a head-to-head comparison nor an indirect comparison between the Janus kinase inhibitors has been performed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. • We performed an adjusted indirect comparison that included randomized clinical trials of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib to assess their equivalence in this scenario. • Our results show that baricitinib and filgotinib are equivalent therapeutic alternatives compared to upadacitinib. However, there is some inconsistency in the results of tofacitinib in front of upadacitinib.

Network meta-analysis of tofacitinib versus biologic treatments in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized primarily by inflammation and pain in the joints. Tofacitinib is an oral drug recently approved for RA treatment; it inhibits Janus protein kinases (JAK) that reduces RA symptoms when conventional DMARDs do not trigger a response. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of biological DMARDs in monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in RA patients and compare the treatments.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature for articles published up to June 2017, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the biological DMARDs indicated for RA in patients with inadequate responses to conventional DMARDs and naïve to biological DMARDs, in similar populations, considering ACR50 as the efficacy variable. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each drug combination, and these parameters were transformed into differences in responses to assess the effectiveness of the alternative medicines. Equivalence therapeutic alternatives (ETA) were ensured to assess the possibility of considering these medications with equivalent efficacy. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using Bayesian approaches and the fixed-effects model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the pre-established criteria were identified. The 95% CI of biological DMARDs was higher than that of placebo without methotrexate, except for certolizumab, golimumab-m, anakinra-m and adalimumab monotherapy. These DMARDs performed significantly better than the placebo, except for etanercept, certolizumab, tofacitinib and golimumab. Certolizumab-m was better than anakinra-m and adalimumab, and tocilizumab alone or combined with methotrexate was superior to adalimumab. Etanercept-m yielded a higher difference in responses compared with the other biological DMARDs, which presented more homogeneous responses, except for adalimumab and anakinra-m, which yielded worse results. None of the biological DMARDs displayed ETA to etanercept-m; however, they displayed ETA with certolizumab-m, except for adalimumab and anakinra-m.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

All biological DMARDs used in combination with methotrexate, except for etanercept, anakinra, certolizumab and tocilizumab without methotrexate, were displayed ETA on using ACR50 at week 24 in patients naïve to biological DMARDs. Etanercept displayed a greater difference in responses, although the high uncertainty of the comparative results prevented the confirmation of the increased efficacy of this drug.