Philip Mease1, Ernest Choy2, Peter Nash3, Chrysostomos Kalyvas4, Matthias Hunger4,5, Luminita Pricop6, Kunal K Gandhi6, Steffen M Jugl7, Howard Thom8. 1. Swedish Medical Center and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. CREATE Centre, Section of Rheumatology, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK. 3. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 4. ICON plc (formerly Mapi Group), Houten, Netherlands. 5. ICON plc (formerly Mapi Group), Munich, Germany. 6. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA. 7. Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. 8. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of two treatments indirectly using data from randomized placebo-controlled trials. This MAIC assessed the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab (an anti-interleukin-17A) and etanercept (a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor) in a target population of biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Individual patient data pooled from FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634), FUTURE 3 (NCT01989468), and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350) (secukinumab: 150 mg, n=458 and 300 mg, n=461) were matched to data from the population in the NCT00317499 trial (etanercept 25 mg, n=101) using MAIC methodology, by adjusting for clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Recalculated outcomes from FUTURE 2, 3, and 5 (150 mg, effective sample size (ESS) post-matching=104; 300 mg, ESS=75; and placebo, ESS=159) were compared with the NCT00317499 trial. Pairwise comparisons using odds ratios (ORs) were performed for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 response criteria at week 12 (placebo-adjusted) and week 24 (non-placebo-adjusted). RESULTS: At week 12, there were no significant differences in ACR responses between secukinumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between secukinumab 150 mg and etanercept at week 24 with respect to ACR 20 and 50 response rates; however, ACR 70 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 4.48 (2.01-9.99), p<0.001). ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were higher with secukinumab 300 mg than with etanercept at this time point (OR (95% CI): ACR 20, 3.28 (1.69-6.38), p<0.001; ACR 50, 1.90 (1.04-3.50), p=0.038; and ACR 70, 3.56 (1.51-8.40), p=0.004). CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, secukinumab was associated with higher ACR 20 and 50 (secukinumab 300 mg) and 70 (secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg) response rates at week 24 than etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with active PsA, whereas no significant difference was observed in the short-term at week 12.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of two treatments indirectly using data from randomized placebo-controlled trials. This MAIC assessed the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab (an anti-interleukin-17A) and etanercept (a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor) in a target population of biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Individual patient data pooled from FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634), FUTURE 3 (NCT01989468), and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350) (secukinumab: 150 mg, n=458 and 300 mg, n=461) were matched to data from the population in the NCT00317499 trial (etanercept 25 mg, n=101) using MAIC methodology, by adjusting for clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Recalculated outcomes from FUTURE 2, 3, and 5 (150 mg, effective sample size (ESS) post-matching=104; 300 mg, ESS=75; and placebo, ESS=159) were compared with the NCT00317499 trial. Pairwise comparisons using odds ratios (ORs) were performed for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 response criteria at week 12 (placebo-adjusted) and week 24 (non-placebo-adjusted). RESULTS: At week 12, there were no significant differences in ACR responses between secukinumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between secukinumab 150 mg and etanercept at week 24 with respect to ACR 20 and 50 response rates; however, ACR 70 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 4.48 (2.01-9.99), p<0.001). ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were higher with secukinumab 300 mg than with etanercept at this time point (OR (95% CI): ACR 20, 3.28 (1.69-6.38), p<0.001; ACR 50, 1.90 (1.04-3.50), p=0.038; and ACR 70, 3.56 (1.51-8.40), p=0.004). CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, secukinumab was associated with higher ACR 20 and 50 (secukinumab 300 mg) and 70 (secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg) response rates at week 24 than etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with active PsA, whereas no significant difference was observed in the short-term at week 12.
Authors: Philip J Mease; Dafna D Gladman; Christopher T Ritchlin; Eric M Ruderman; Serge D Steinfeld; Ernest H S Choy; John T Sharp; Peter A Ory; Renee J Perdok; Mark A Weinberg Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2005-10
Authors: C Antoni; G G Krueger; K de Vlam; C Birbara; A Beutler; C Guzzo; B Zhou; L T Dooley; A Kavanaugh Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-01-27 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Wolfram Sterry; Jean-Paul Ortonne; Bruce Kirkham; Olivier Brocq; Deborah Robertson; Ronald D Pedersen; Joanne Estojak; Charles T Molta; Bruce Freundlich Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-02-02
Authors: Dafna D Gladman; Philip J Mease; Vibeke Strand; Paul Healy; Philip S Helliwell; Oliver Fitzgerald; Alice B Gottlieb; Gerald G Krueger; Peter Nash; Christopher T Ritchlin; William Taylor; Ade Adebajo; Jurgen Braun; Alberto Cauli; Sueli Carneiro; Ernst Choy; Ben Dijkmans; Luiz Espinoza; Desiree van der Heijde; Elaine Husni; Ennio Lubrano; Dennis McGonagle; Abrar Qureshi; Enrique R Soriano; Jane Zochling Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Philip J Mease; Alan J Kivitz; Francis X Burch; Evan L Siegel; Stanley B Cohen; Peter Ory; David Salonen; Joel Rubenstein; John T Sharp; Wayne Tsuji Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-07
Authors: Philip J Mease; Alan J Kivitz; Francis X Burch; Evan L Siegel; Stanley B Cohen; Peter Ory; David Salonen; Joel Rubenstein; John T Sharp; Meleana Dunn; Wayne Tsuji Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Amir Haddad; Tal Gazitt; Ilan Feldhamer; Joy Feld; Arnon Dov Cohen; Idit Lavi; Faten Tatour; Irena Bergman; Devy Zisman Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 5.156