Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Free access
Research Article
26 February 2019

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison: secukinumab versus infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis

Authors: Vibeke Strand [email protected], Iain McInnes, Philip Mease, Peter Nash, Howard Thom, Chrysostomos Kalyvas, Matthias Hunger, Kunal Gandhi, Luminita Pricop, Steffen Jugl, and Ernest ChoyAuthor Info & Affiliations
Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.
Volume 8, Number 7
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0141
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To compare secukinumab with infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Patients & methods: Individual patient baseline data for secukinumab were matched to published aggregate data for infliximab by key baseline characteristics, with matching weights determined by logistic regression, and used to recalculate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses for secukinumab, for comparison with infliximab. Results: There were no differences in outcomes between secukinumab and infliximab at weeks 6/8 and 14/16. At weeks 24 and 54/52, ACR 20 responses were higher with secukinumab 150 mg than infliximab. At week 54/52, ACR 20/50 responses were higher for secukinumab 300 mg than infliximab. Conclusion: In the mid to long term, patients receiving secukinumab were more likely to achieve ACR 20/50 responses than those receiving infliximab.

Supplementary Material

File (suppl_file.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Gossec L, Smolen JS, Ramiro S et al. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 75(3), 499–510 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Coates LC, Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ et al. Group for research and assessment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis 2015 treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 68(5), 1060–1071 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). TALTZ (ixekizumab) injection, for subcutaneous use. Highlights of prescribing information (2016). www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/125521s004lbl.pdf.
Google Scholar
5.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). COSENTYX® (secukinumab) injection, for subcutaneous use. Highlights of prescribing information (2015). www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/125504s001s002lbl.pdf.
Google Scholar
6.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Cosentyx. EPAR summary of product characteristics. (2018). www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003729/WC500183129.pdf.
Google Scholar
7.
Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb's Orencia (abatacept) receives FDA approval for treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in adults (2017). www.news.bms.com/press-release/rd-news/bristol-myers-squibbs-orencia-abatacept-receives-fda-approval-treatment-active.
Google Scholar
8.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Orencia. EPAR Summary for the public (2017). www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Summary_for_the_public/human/000701/WC500048936.pdf.
Google Scholar
9.
McInnes IB, Mease PJ, Kirkham B et al. Secukinumab, a human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (FUTURE 2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 386(9999), 1137–1146 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Provides primary data for this matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).
10.
Nash P, Mease PJ, McInnes IB et al. Efficacy and safety of secukinumab administration by autoinjector in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (FUTURE 3). Arthritis Res. Ther. 20(1), 47 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Provides primary data for this MAIC.
11.
Mease P, van der Heijde D, Landewe R et al. Secukinumab improves active psoriatic arthritis symptoms and inhibits radiographic progression: primary results from the randomized, double-blind, phase III FUTURE 5 study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 77(6), 890–897 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Deodhar A. Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which is the most effective biologic of all? J. Rheumatol. 45(4), 449–450 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med. Decis. Making 33(5), 607–617 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submission to NICE (2016). www.nicedsu.org.uk.
Google Scholar
• Best practice guidance for MAIC.
15.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med. Decis. Making 38(2), 200–211 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Best practice guidance for MAIC.
16.
Kirson NY, Rao S, Birnbaum HG, Kantor E, Wei RS, Cifaldi M. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. J. Med. Econ. 16(4), 479–489 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Nash P, McInnes IB, Mease PJ et al. Secukinumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: comparative effectiveness versus adalimumab using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Arthritis Rheumatol. 68(Suppl. 10), 1738 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Strand V, Betts KA, Mittal M, Song J, Skup M, Joshi A. Comparative effectiveness of adalimumab versus secukinumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol. Ther. 4(2), 349–362 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Antoni C, Krueger GG, de Vlam K et al. Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 64(8), 1150–1157 (2005).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Provides primary data for this MAIC.
20.
Nash P, McInnes IB, Mease PJ et al. Secukinumab versus adalimumab for psoriatic arthritis: comparative effectiveness up to 48 weeks using a Matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol. Ther. 5(1), 99–122 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Belger M, Brnabic A, Kadziola Z, Petto H, Faries D. Alternative weighting approaches for matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Value Health 18(3), A31–A32 (2015).
Google Scholar
22.
Costa L, Perricone C, Chimenti MS et al. Switching between biological treatments in psoriatic arthritis: a review of the evidence. Drugs R D 17(4), 509–522 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Fagerli KM, Lie E, van der Heijde D et al. Switching between TNF inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis: data from the NOR-DMARD study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 72(11), 1840–1844 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Reddy SM, Crean S, Martin AL, Burns MD, Palmer JB. Real-world effectiveness of anti-TNF switching in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review of the literature. Clin. Rheumatol. 35(12), 2955–2966 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
25.
Kristensen LE, Lie E, Jacobsson LT et al. Effectiveness and feasibility associated with switching to a second or third TNF inhibitor in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a cohort study from southern Sweden. J. Rheumatol. 43(1), 81–87 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics 28(10), 935–945 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health 15(6), 940–947 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Discusses methodology and rationale for MAIC.
28.
Signorovitch J, Swallow E, Kantor E et al. Everolimus and sunitinib for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 2(1), 32 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Tillett W, Eder L, Goel N et al. Enhanced patient involvement and the need to revise the core set – report from the psoriatic arthritis working group at OMERACT 2014. J. Rheumatol. 42(11), 2198–2203 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
Orbai AM, Mease PJ, de Wit M et al. Report of the GRAPPA-OMERACT psoriatic arthritis working group from the GRAPPA 2015 annual meeting. J. Rheumatol. 43(5), 965–969 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50(6), 683–691 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Veroniki AA, Straus SE, Soobiah C, Elliott MJ, Tricco AC. A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16(1), 47 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|