![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
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.
Acknowledgments
Medical writing support was provided by Wilson Joe, PhD, CMPP, of Cello Health, and was funded by Janssen EMEA HEMAR.
Author contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: J. Diels, S. Van Sanden, A. Schubert, F. Hassan, P. Thilakarathne; data collection: S. Van Sanden, P. Thilakarathne; analysis and interpretation of results: J. Diels, S. Van Sanden, A. Schubert, F. Hassan, P. Thilakarathne, B. Ozturk, N. Barthelmes, J. Signorovitch, K. Reich. All authors reviewed the results, were involved in the draft manuscript preparation, and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
J. Signorovitch is an employee of Analysis Group Inc., which receives research funding from biopharmaceutical companies including Janssen. J. Diels is an employee of Janssen and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. S. Van Sanden is an employee of Janssen and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. A. Schubert is an employee of Janssen-Cilag Poland and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. F. Hassan is an employee of Janssen Cilag Ltd and holds shares for Johnson & Johnson. P. Thilakarathne is an employee of Janssen. B. Ozturk is an employee of Janssen and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. N. Barthelmes is an employee of Janssen and holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. K. Reich has served as advisor and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in clinical trials sponsored by AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forward Pharma, Gilead, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Ocean Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB; K. Reich is co-founder of MoonLake Immunotherapeutics.
Data availability statement
Data available on request from the authors; The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, FH, upon reasonable request.