Journal of Dermatological Treatment (Dec 2023)

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

  • James Signorovitch,
  • Joris Diels,
  • Suzy Van Sanden,
  • Agata Schubert,
  • Fareen Hassan,
  • Pushpike Thilakarathne,
  • Bulent Ozturk,
  • Norma Barthelmes,
  • Kristian Reich

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2023.2169574
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 34, no. 1

Abstract

Read online

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.

Keywords