Relative effectiveness of sunitinib versus everolimus in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an updated matching-adjusted indirect comparison

A Comparison of Relative-Efficacy Estimate(S) Derived From Both Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons and Standard Anchored Indirect Treatment Comparisons: A Review of Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons

OBJECTIVES

We present an empirical comparison of relative-efficacy estimate(s) from matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) with estimates from corresponding standard anchored indirect treatment comparisons.

METHODS

A total of 80 comparisons were identified from 17 publications through a systematic rapid review. A standardized metric that used reported relative treatment efficacy estimates and their associated uncertainty was used to compare the methods across different treatment indications and outcome measures.

RESULTS

On aggregate, MAICs presented for connected networks tended to report a more favorable relative-efficacy estimate for the treatment for which individual-level patient data were available relative to the reported indirect treatment comparison estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we recognize the importance of MAIC and other population adjustment methods in certain situations, we recommend that results from these analyses are interpreted with caution. Researchers and analysts should carefully consider if MAICs are appropriate where presented and whether MAICs would have added value where omitted.

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of ozanimod versus teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

A growing number of immunomodulating disease-modifying therapies are available for treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). In the absence of randomized head-to-head trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can be used to adjust for cross-trial differences and evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of these agents. We used MAIC methodology to indirectly compare key outcomes with ozanimod (OZM) and teriflunomide (TERI) in the treatment of RMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OZM vs TERI. Given the absence of head-to-head trials of OZM vs TERI, we used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to adjust for potential treatment effect modifiers and prognostic factors while assessing confirmed disability progression (CDP), relapse, and safety outcomes. Individual patient data for OZM (SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials) and aggregate level data for TERI (ASCLEPIOS I/II, TOWER, OPTIMUM, and TEMSO trials) were used to evaluate the following outcomes: annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, CDP at 3 and 6 months, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs.

RESULTS

After matching, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between OZM and TERI. Compared with TERI, OZM demonstrated significant improvements in ARR (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62-0.84), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.44-0.70), overall AEs (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.29-0.43), SAEs (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.77), and discontinuations due to AEs (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.09-0.21). OZM demonstrated statistically significant improvements in CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66-0.92) but nonsignificant differences at 6 months (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.01) compared with TERI.

CONCLUSION

In this indirect treatment comparison of patients with RMS, OZM appeared to have an improved benefit-risk profile over TERI.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ozanimod and Dimethyl Fumarate for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has grown substantially. As a result, patients, healthcare providers, and insurers are increasingly interested in comparative efficacy and safety evaluations to distinguish between treatment options, but head-to-head studies between DMTs are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes with the DMTs ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to adjust for cross-trial differences in study design and population.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ozanimod compared with DMF. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for ozanimod were obtained from the SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials, and aggregate-level patient data (APD) for DMF were obtained from CONFIRM and DEFINE. A MAIC is used to weight IPD to APD based on important baseline patient characteristics considered to be effect modifiers or prognostic factors in order to balance the covariate distribution to establish more homogenous trial populations. Once trial populations are determined to be sufficiently homogenous, outcomes of interest are estimated and used to generate treatment effects between the weighted IPD and APD. We used MAIC methodology to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of interest between ozanimod 1.0 mg once daily (OD) and DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID), including confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 and 6 months, annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs.

RESULTS

After matching patient data, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and those receiving DMF. Compared with DMF, ozanimod demonstrated significantly improved CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.86), ARR (rate ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.97), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.83), overall AEs (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08-0.16), SAEs (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.19-0.39), and discontinuations (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07-0.17). CDP at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two agents (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.26).

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment of baseline patient characteristics, the MAIC demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of ozanimod 1.0 mg OD was superior to that of DMF 240 mg BID. Although a MAIC is less likely to produce biased estimates than a naïve or a standard indirect treatment comparison via a common comparator, limitations include potential confounding due to unobserved and thus unaccounted for baseline differences.

Cost-effectiveness of lutetium (177Lu) oxodotreotide vs everolimus in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in Norway and Sweden

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a relatively rare and heterogenous group of tumors. Currently available treatment options for patients with progressive GEP-NETs include lutetium (¹⁷⁷Lu) oxodotreotide (¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate) and everolimus [as well as sunitinib for patients with pancreatic NETs (P-NETs)].

AIM

To perform a health economic analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate compared with everolimus in patients with unresectable or metastatic midgut-NETs or P-NETs in both Sweden and Norway.

METHODS

Simulations were performed using a three-state partitioned survival model and analyses were performed separately for patients with midgut-NETs and P-NETs. Clinical input data were sourced from an indirect comparison that utilized survival data from clinical trials of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate and everolimus. The analyses were performed from the healthcare payer perspective over a time horizon of 20 years. For Sweden, future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. For Norway, a discount rate of 4% per annum was applied.

RESULTS

For Sweden, improved survival outcomes and higher lifetime costs with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 391194 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for midgut NETs and SEK 16764 per QALY gained for P-NETs for ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate compared with everolimus. For Norway, the corresponding ICERs were NOK 244444 per QALY gained and NOK 106451 per QALY gained, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were most sensitive to changes in drug acquisition costs and health state utility values.

CONCLUSION

In both Sweden and Norway, from a healthcare provider perspective, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate is likely to be considered cost-effective relative to everolimus for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic, progressive midgut-NETs or P-NETs. 

Performance of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) for the evidence synthesis of single-arm trials with time-to-event outcomes

Background

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the performance of a time-to-event data reconstruction method, to assess the bias and efficiency of unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methods for the analysis of time-to-event outcomes, and to propose an approach to adjust the bias of unanchored MAIC when omitted confounders across trials may exist.

Methods

To evaluate the methods using a Monte Carlo approach, a thousand repetitions of simulated data sets were generated for two single-arm trials. In each repetition, researchers were assumed to have access to individual-level patient data (IPD) for one of the trials and the published Kaplan-Meier curve of another. First, we compared the raw data and the reconstructed IPD using Cox regressions to determine the performance of the data reconstruction method. Then, we evaluated alternative unanchored MAIC strategies with varying completeness of covariates for matching in terms of bias, efficiency, and confidence interval coverage. Finally, we proposed a bias factor-adjusted approach to gauge the true effects when unanchored MAIC estimates might be biased due to omitted variables.

Results

Reconstructed data sufficiently represented raw data in the sense that the difference between the raw and reconstructed data was not statistically significant over the one thousand repetitions. Also, the bias of unanchored MAIC estimates ranged from minimal to substantial as the set of covariates became less complete. More, the confidence interval estimates of unanchored MAIC were suboptimal even using the complete set of covariates. Finally, the bias factor-adjusted method we proposed substantially reduced omitted variable bias.

Conclusions

Unanchored MAIC should be used to analyze time-to-event outcomes with caution. The bias factor may be used to gauge the true treatment effect.