Indirect comparisons of siponimod with fingolimod and ofatumumab in multiple sclerosis: assessing the feasibility of propensity score matching analyses

References

• Walton C, King R, Rechtman L, et al. Rising prevalence of multiple sclerosis worldwide: insights from the atlas of MS, third edition. Mult Scler. 2020;26(14):1816–1821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tafti D, Ehsan M, Xixis K. Multiple sclerosis. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Vargas DL, Tyor WR. Update on disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. J Investig Med. 2017;65(5):883–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen JA, Barkhof F, Comi G, et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):402–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, et al. Ocrelizumab versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(3):221–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Mayzent (siponimod) highlights of prescribing information; 2020 [updated 2020 Jul; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/209884s002lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Europharm Limited. Mayzent (siponimod) summary of product characteristics; 2021 [updated 2021 Jan 14; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/mayzent-epar-product-information_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. Mayzent (siponimod) product monograph; 2020 [updated 2020 Feb 20; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://pdf.hres.ca/dpd_pm/00055111.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Limited. Mayzent (siponimod) Australian product information; 2021 [updated 2021 Mar 10; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/PICMI?OpenForm&t=&q=siponimod
   Google Scholar
• Kappos L, Bar-Or A, Cree BAC, et al. Siponimod versus placebo in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (EXPAND): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2018;391(10127):1263–1273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Gilenya (fingolimod) highlights of prescribing information; 2019 [updated 2019 Dec; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/022527s031lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Limited. Gilenya (fingolimod) Australian product information; 2020 [updated 2021 Feb 9; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/PICMI?OpenForm&t=&q=fingolimod
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. Gilenya (fingolimod) product monograph; 2020 [updated 2020 Dec 15; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://pdf.hres.ca/dpd_pm/00059239.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Europharm Limited. Gilenya (fingolimod) summary of product characteristics; 2021 [updated 2021 Feb 4; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/gilenya-epar-product-information_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lublin F, Miller DH, Freedman MS, et al. Oral fingolimod in primary progressive multiple sclerosis (INFORMS): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10023):1075–1084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabresi PA, Radue E-W, Goodin D, et al. Safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (FREEDOMS II): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(6):545–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kappos L, Radue EW, O'Connor P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):387–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Kesimpta (ofatumumab) highlights of prescribing information; 2020 [updated 2020 Aug; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/125326s070lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Limited. Kesimpta (ofatumumab) Australian product information; 2021 [updated 2021 Mar 4; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/PICMI?OpenForm&t=&q=ofatumumab
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Ireland Limited. Kesimpta (ofatumumab) summary of product characteristics; 2021 [updated 2021 Apr 16; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/kesimpta-epar-product-information_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. Kesimpta (ofatumumab) product monograph; 2021. [updated 2021 Jan 22; cited 2021 May 12]. Available from: https://pdf.hres.ca/dpd_pm/00059817.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Sormani MP, Wolff R, Lang S, et al. Overview of differences and similarities of published mixed treatment comparisons on pharmaceutical interventions for multiple sclerosis. Neurol Ther. 2020;9(2):335–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gensler LS, Chakravarty SD, Cameron C, et al. Propensity score matching/reweighting analysis comparing intravenous golimumab to infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis using data from the GO-ALIVE and ASSERT trials. Clin Rheumatol. 2020;39(10):2907–2917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann H, Andersohn F, Bodnar C, et al. Adjusted indirect comparison using propensity score matching of osimertinib to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with EGFRm T790M NSCLC who have progressed after EGFR-TKI. Clin Drug Investig. 2018;38(4):319–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):1–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Cohen JA, et al. Ofatumumab versus teriflunomide in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(6):546–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades A, et al. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(5):607–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlke F, Arnold DL, Aarden P, et al. Characterisation of MS phenotypes across the age span using a novel data set integrating 34 clinical trials (NO.MS cohort): age is a key contributor to presentation. Mult Scler J. 2021:1352458520988637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weideman AM, Tapia-Maltos MA, Johnson K, et al. Meta-analysis of the age-dependent efficacy of multiple sclerosis treatments. Front Neurol. 2017;8:577.
   Google Scholar
• Samjoo IA, Worthington E, Haltner A, et al. The importance of considering differences in study and patient characteristics before undertaking indirect treatment comparisons: a case study of siponimod for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36(7):1145–1156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron C, Ewara E, Wilson FR, et al. The importance of considering differences in study design in network meta-analysis: an application using anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs for ulcerative colitis. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(8):894–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron C, Hutton B, Druchok C, et al. Importance of assessing and adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity in network meta-analysis: a case study of psoriasis. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(11):1037–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorlund K, Druyts E, Aviña-Zubieta JA, et al. Why the findings of published multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis are different: an overview of recurrent methodological shortcomings. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(9):1524–1535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorscheider J, Buzzard K, Jokubaitis V, et al. Defining secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2016;139(Pt 9):2395–2405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: effectiveness and value; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Melendez-Torres G, Auguste P, Armoiry X, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate for treating multiple sclerosis: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(52):1–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Hu F, Zhang Y, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2020;267(12):3489–3498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucchetta RC, Tonin FS, Borba HHL, et al. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(9):813–826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCool R, Wilson K, Arber M, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing ocrelizumab with other treatments for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;29:55–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samjoo IA, Worthington E, Drudge C, et al. Comparison of ofatumumab and other disease-modifying therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis. J Comp Eff Res. 2020;9(18):1255–1274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui MK, Khurana IS, Budhia S, et al. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(8):1361–1371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filippini G, Del Giovane C, Vacchi L, et al. Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(6):CD008933.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar