Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) results confirmed by head-to-head trials: a case study in psoriasis

TY - JOUR

T1 - Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) results confirmed by head-to-head trials: a case study in psoriasis

AU - Signorovitch, James

AU - Diels, Joris

AU - Van Sanden, Suzy

AU - Schubert, Agata

AU - Hassan, Fareen

AU - Thilakarathne, Pushpike

AU - Ozturk, Bulent

AU - Barthelmes, Norma

AU - Reich, Kristian

PY - 2023/12

Y1 - 2023/12

N2 - BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparisons through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-quality evidence to inform healthcare decisions. In their absence, indirect comparisons are often performed; however, evidence is limited on how valid matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC)-based comparative efficacy estimates are vs. RCT-based estimates.OBJECTIVES: Compare MAIC and RCT results of guselkumab vs. secukinumab and ixekizumab to provide insight into the validity of results generated using MAIC methods.METHODS: Previously reported results from MAICs of guselkumab vs. secukinumab and ixekizumab were compared with results from ECLIPSE and IXORA-R RCTs based on risk differences between Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rates.RESULTS: Risk difference (95% confidence interval) in PASI 90 response rates at week 48 for guselkumab vs. secukinumab was 14.4% (9.4%; 19.4%) in ECLIPSE and 9.4% (4.7%; 14.0%) in the MAIC. The risk difference at week 24 for guselkumab vs. ixekizumab was 0.0% (-5.4%; 5.4%) in IXORA-R and 0.7% (-5.1%; 6.4%) in the MAIC.CONCLUSIONS: Comparative efficacy results were consistent between MAICs and RCTs of guselkumab vs. secukinumab and ixekizumab. This analysis demonstrates that MAIC methods can provide valid relative treatment effect estimates when direct comparisons are lacking, particularly when trials with similar designs and patient populations inform the analysis.

AB - BACKGROUND: Head-to-head comparisons through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-quality evidence to inform healthcare decisions. In their absence, indirect comparisons are often performed; however, evidence is limited on how valid matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC)-based comparative efficacy estimates are vs. RCT-based estimates.OBJECTIVES: Compare MAIC and RCT results of guselkumab vs. secukinumab and ixekizumab to provide insight into the validity of results generated using MAIC methods.METHODS: Previously reported results from MAICs of guselkumab vs. secukinumab and ixekizumab were compared with results from ECLIPSE and IXORA-R RCTs based on risk differences between Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rates.RESULTS: Risk difference (95% confidence interval) in PASI 90 response rates at week 48 for guselkumab vs. secukinumab was 14.4% (9.4%; 19.4%) in ECLIPSE and 9.4% (4.7%; 14.0%) in the MAIC. The risk difference at week 24 for guselkumab vs. ixekizumab was 0.0% (-5.4%; 5.4%) in IXORA-R and 0.7% (-5.1%; 6.4%) in the MAIC.CONCLUSIONS: Comparative efficacy results were consistent between MAICs and RCTs of guselkumab vs. secukinumab and ixekizumab. This analysis demonstrates that MAIC methods can provide valid relative treatment effect estimates when direct comparisons are lacking, particularly when trials with similar designs and patient populations inform the analysis.

KW - Humans

KW - Mycobacterium avium Complex

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Psoriasis

KW - Severity of Illness Index

U2 - 10.1080/09546634.2023.2169574

DO - 10.1080/09546634.2023.2169574

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 36724798

VL - 34

JO - J DERMATOL TREAT

JF - J DERMATOL TREAT

SN - 0954-6634

IS - 1

M1 - 2169574

ER -