使用倾向评分分析和模拟治疗比较法比较复发性多发性硬化症患者使用奥妥木单抗和口服疗法的疗效。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders Pub Date : 2024-03-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562864241239453
Nicholas Riley, Christopher Drudge, Morag Nelson, Anja Haltner, Michael Barnett, Simon Broadley, Helmut Butzkueven, Pamela McCombe, Anneke Van der Walt, Erin O Y Wong, Martin Merschhemke, Nicholas Adlard, Rob Walker, Imtiaz A Samjoo
{"title":"使用倾向评分分析和模拟治疗比较法比较复发性多发性硬化症患者使用奥妥木单抗和口服疗法的疗效。","authors":"Nicholas Riley, Christopher Drudge, Morag Nelson, Anja Haltner, Michael Barnett, Simon Broadley, Helmut Butzkueven, Pamela McCombe, Anneke Van der Walt, Erin O Y Wong, Martin Merschhemke, Nicholas Adlard, Rob Walker, Imtiaz A Samjoo","doi":"10.1177/17562864241239453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence from network meta-analyses (NMAs) and real-world propensity score (PS) analyses suggest monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer a therapeutic advantage over currently available oral therapies and, therefore, warrant consideration as a distinct group of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). This is counter to the current perception of these therapies by some stakeholders, including payers.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A multifaceted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) approach was undertaken to clarify the relative efficacy of mAbs and oral therapies.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two ITC methods that use individual patient data (IPD) to adjust for between-trial differences, PS analyses and simulated treatment comparisons (STCs), were used to compare the mAb ofatumumab <i>versus</i> the oral therapies cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>As IPD were available for trials of ofatumumab and fingolimod, PS analyses were conducted. Given summary-level data were available for cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod trials, STCs were conducted between ofatumumab and each of these oral therapies. Three efficacy outcomes were compared: annualized relapse rate (ARR), 3-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP), and 6-month CDP (6mCDP).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PS analyses demonstrated ofatumumab was statistically superior to fingolimod for ARR and time to 3mCDP but not time to 6mCDP. In STCs, ofatumumab was statistically superior in reducing ARR and decreasing the proportion of patients with 3mCDP compared with cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod and in decreasing the proportion with 6mCP compared with fingolimod and ozanimod. These findings were largely consistent with recently published NMAs that identified mAb therapies as the most efficacious DMTs for RMS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Complementary ITC methods showed ofatumumab was superior to cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod in lowering relapse rates and delaying disability progression among patients with RMS. Our study supports the therapeutic superiority of mAbs over currently available oral DMTs for RMS and the delineation of mAbs as high-efficacy therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":22980,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10960976/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of ofatumumab <i>versus</i> oral therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients using propensity score analyses and simulated treatment comparisons.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Riley, Christopher Drudge, Morag Nelson, Anja Haltner, Michael Barnett, Simon Broadley, Helmut Butzkueven, Pamela McCombe, Anneke Van der Walt, Erin O Y Wong, Martin Merschhemke, Nicholas Adlard, Rob Walker, Imtiaz A Samjoo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562864241239453\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence from network meta-analyses (NMAs) and real-world propensity score (PS) analyses suggest monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer a therapeutic advantage over currently available oral therapies and, therefore, warrant consideration as a distinct group of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). This is counter to the current perception of these therapies by some stakeholders, including payers.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A multifaceted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) approach was undertaken to clarify the relative efficacy of mAbs and oral therapies.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two ITC methods that use individual patient data (IPD) to adjust for between-trial differences, PS analyses and simulated treatment comparisons (STCs), were used to compare the mAb ofatumumab <i>versus</i> the oral therapies cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>As IPD were available for trials of ofatumumab and fingolimod, PS analyses were conducted. Given summary-level data were available for cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod trials, STCs were conducted between ofatumumab and each of these oral therapies. Three efficacy outcomes were compared: annualized relapse rate (ARR), 3-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP), and 6-month CDP (6mCDP).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PS analyses demonstrated ofatumumab was statistically superior to fingolimod for ARR and time to 3mCDP but not time to 6mCDP. In STCs, ofatumumab was statistically superior in reducing ARR and decreasing the proportion of patients with 3mCDP compared with cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod and in decreasing the proportion with 6mCP compared with fingolimod and ozanimod. These findings were largely consistent with recently published NMAs that identified mAb therapies as the most efficacious DMTs for RMS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Complementary ITC methods showed ofatumumab was superior to cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod in lowering relapse rates and delaying disability progression among patients with RMS. Our study supports the therapeutic superiority of mAbs over currently available oral DMTs for RMS and the delineation of mAbs as high-efficacy therapies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10960976/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562864241239453\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562864241239453","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:网络荟萃分析(NMAs)和真实世界倾向评分(PS)分析的证据表明,单克隆抗体(mAbs)与目前可用的口服疗法相比具有治疗优势,因此值得考虑将其作为复发性多发性硬化症(RMS)患者的一类独特的高效疾病修饰疗法(DMTs)。这与包括支付方在内的一些利益相关者目前对这些疗法的看法背道而驰:采用多方面的间接治疗比较(ITC)方法来明确 mAbs 和口服疗法的相对疗效:设计:使用两种ITC方法--PS分析和模拟治疗比较(STC)--来比较mAb ofatumumab与口服疗法克拉利宾、芬戈莫德和奥扎尼莫德的疗效,这两种方法使用患者个体数据(IPD)来调整试验间差异:由于可以获得ofatumumab和芬戈莫德试验的IPD,因此进行了PS分析。鉴于克拉利宾、芬戈莫德和奥扎尼莫德试验的摘要级数据可用,因此在ofatumumab和这些口服疗法之间进行了STC分析。比较了三种疗效结果:年复发率(ARR)、3个月确诊残疾进展(3mCDP)和6个月CDP(6mCDP):结果:PS分析表明,在ARR和3个月确诊残疾进展时间方面,ofatumumab在统计学上优于芬戈莫德,但在6个月确诊残疾进展时间方面,ofatumumab并不优于芬戈莫德。在STC中,与克拉利宾、芬戈莫德和奥扎尼莫德相比,ofatumumab在降低ARR和减少3mCDP患者比例方面具有统计学优势;与芬戈莫德和奥扎尼莫德相比,ofatumumab在减少6mCP患者比例方面具有统计学优势。这些发现与最近发表的NMAs基本一致,后者认为mAb疗法是治疗RMS最有效的DMTs:补充性ITC方法显示,在降低RMS患者的复发率和延缓残疾进展方面,ofatumumab优于克拉利宾、芬戈莫德和奥扎尼莫德。我们的研究支持mAbs在治疗RMS方面优于目前可用的口服DMTs,并支持将mAbs定义为高效疗法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative efficacy of ofatumumab versus oral therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis patients using propensity score analyses and simulated treatment comparisons.

Background: Evidence from network meta-analyses (NMAs) and real-world propensity score (PS) analyses suggest monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer a therapeutic advantage over currently available oral therapies and, therefore, warrant consideration as a distinct group of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). This is counter to the current perception of these therapies by some stakeholders, including payers.

Objectives: A multifaceted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) approach was undertaken to clarify the relative efficacy of mAbs and oral therapies.

Design: Two ITC methods that use individual patient data (IPD) to adjust for between-trial differences, PS analyses and simulated treatment comparisons (STCs), were used to compare the mAb ofatumumab versus the oral therapies cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod.

Data sources and methods: As IPD were available for trials of ofatumumab and fingolimod, PS analyses were conducted. Given summary-level data were available for cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod trials, STCs were conducted between ofatumumab and each of these oral therapies. Three efficacy outcomes were compared: annualized relapse rate (ARR), 3-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP), and 6-month CDP (6mCDP).

Results: The PS analyses demonstrated ofatumumab was statistically superior to fingolimod for ARR and time to 3mCDP but not time to 6mCDP. In STCs, ofatumumab was statistically superior in reducing ARR and decreasing the proportion of patients with 3mCDP compared with cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod and in decreasing the proportion with 6mCP compared with fingolimod and ozanimod. These findings were largely consistent with recently published NMAs that identified mAb therapies as the most efficacious DMTs for RMS.

Conclusion: Complementary ITC methods showed ofatumumab was superior to cladribine, fingolimod, and ozanimod in lowering relapse rates and delaying disability progression among patients with RMS. Our study supports the therapeutic superiority of mAbs over currently available oral DMTs for RMS and the delineation of mAbs as high-efficacy therapies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.70%
发文量
62
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders is a peer-reviewed, open access journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of neurology. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in neurology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area.
期刊最新文献
Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality under treatment with GLP-1 RAs or the dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in overweight or obese adults without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical and device-based predictors of improved experience of activities of daily living after a multidisciplinary inpatient treatment for people with Parkinson's disease: a cohort study. Maintenance of zilucoplan efficacy in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis up to 24 weeks: a model-informed analysis. Targeting dorsal root ganglia for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: from bench to bedside. CYP2C19 genotype and sodium channel blockers in lacosamide-treated children with epilepsy: two major determinants of trough lacosamide concentration or clinical response.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1