Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) versus IDegAsp, a co-formulation of basal insulin degludec 100 U/mL with rapid-acting insulin aspart.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Outcomes from eligible RCTs were compared by an indirect treatment comparison using a Bayesian framework. Subanalyses of Japanese and international trials were performed.

Results

Eight RCTs (duration 26-30 weeks) were included. Mean difference in HbA1c change with iGlarLixi exceeded that for IDegAsp: -0.64 (95% credible interval -1.01, -0.28) %-units (-7.0 [-11.0, -3.1] mmol/mol) for all trials, -0.39 (-0.55, -0.23) %-units (-4.3 [-6.0, -2.5] mmol/mol) for international, and -0.88 (-1.11, -0.64) %-units (-9.6 [-12.1, -7.0] mmol/mol) for Japanese trials. HbA1c target achievement (<7.0%-units [<53 mmol/mol]) was greater for iGlarLixi in all trials (odds ratio 2.50 [1.06, 5.56]) and Japanese trials (2.17 [1.27, 3.70]), but not in international trials (2.17 [0.42, 11.11]). Analyses suggesting differences in mean postmeal self-measured plasma glucose were significantly lower by 1.0-2.0 mmol/L (18-36 mg/dL) with iGlarLixi in all analyses. Bodyweight change was more favourable (1-2 kg) for iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp for all analyses (P < 0.05). Comparisons of hypoglycaemia were inconclusive owing to differences in definitions between studies. Adverse events were more frequent with iGlarLixi because of gastrointestinal intolerance.

Conclusions

iGlarLixi appears to offer clinical benefit in glucose control and bodyweight change in people needing both basal and meal-time intervention.

SUBMITTER: Home PD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9290816 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

Home Philip D PD Mehta Roopa R Hafidh Khadija A S KAS Gurova Olesya Y OY Alvarez Agustina A Serafini Paul P Pourrahmat Mir-Masoud MM

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20210831 12

<h4>Aim</h4>To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) versus IDegAsp, a co-formulation of basal insulin degludec 100 U/mL with rapid-acting insulin aspart.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Outcomes from eligible RCTs were compared by an indirect treatment comparison using a Bayesian framewor ...[more]

PMID: 34402153

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily compared to tiotropium 18 μg once daily in adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsA systematic literature review performed in March 2014, using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, identified 17 randomized placebo-controlled trials, (tiotropium n = 15; aclidinium/formoterol n = 2). Outcomes of interest were: bronchodilation (peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), COPD symptoms [Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and % of responders (>1 unit improvement)] and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) [St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and % responders (>4 unit improvement)], % of patients with ≥1 exacerbations, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), hospitalization and mortality, all at 24 weeks. In the absence of head-to-head trials between aclidinium/formoterol and tiotropium, a Bayesian indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was used with placebo as common control.ResultsRegarding bronchodilation, aclidinium/formoterol was found to be more efficacious than tiotropium at peak FEV1, with mean difference in change from baseline (DCFB) 143 mL [95% credible interval (CrI): 112, 174] and at trough FEV1 [DCFB 26 mL (95% CrI -2, 55)]. Aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in improving dyspnea symptoms measured by TDI [DCFB 0.54 points (95% CrI 0.09, 0.99); odds ratio (OR) of responders 1.51 (95% CrI 1.11, 2.06)]. SGRQ results are comparable for aclidinium/formoterol versus tiotropium [DCFB -0.52 (95% CrI -2.21, 1.17); OR of responders 1.16 (95% CrI 0.47, 2.87)]. The ITC results suggest similar safety profiles regarding AEs, SAEs and hospitalization.ConclusionBased on the ITC, aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in terms of lung function and symptom control while providing comparable HRQoL results and safety profile.FundingAstraZeneca.

Project description:BackgroundPsoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that impacts quality of life and requires long-term treatment and effective symptom management. Interleukin-23 (IL-23) has emerged as a key player in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and tildrakizumab and guselkumab are both immunomodulatory agents that inhibit the p19 subunit of IL-23. In its pivotal Phase III trial, tildrakizumab demonstrated greater efficacy than etanercept in moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing tildrakizumab with guselkumab.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review and Bucher indirect comparison of tildrakizumab and guselkumab, using placebo as a common comparator. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE(R) Daily Epub Ahead of Print, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for Phase III randomized controlled trials between 1946 and November 2018. Inclusion criteria were adult patients ≥18 years with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, and intervention with tildrakizumab or guselkumab compared to placebo or best supportive care. Outcomes included were severity of psoriasis as defined by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 and PASI 90, frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs), and treatment discontinuations. Outcomes were evaluated at Weeks 12 to 16 and 24 to 28. Analysis was based on the intent-to-treat population and, for all outcomes, the number of events reported were analyzed as a proportion of the number of patients randomized to ensure consistency across trials.ResultsOverall, 154 unique records were identified. Five studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis; two tildrakizumab trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) and three guselkumab trials (VOYAGE 1, VOYAGE 2, and a Japanese study). There was no statistically significant difference between guselkumab and tildrakizumab for PASI 75, PASI 90, SAEs, and rate of discontinuations at either timepoint.ConclusionThis study assessed the comparative efficacy of tildrakizumab and guselkumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Limitations included the limited number of publications, imputation of placebo arm values for Weeks 24 to 28, and limited relevance of the Japanese study. This indirect comparison does not provide evidence that one treatment is superior to the other.

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of obesity has increased worldwide over the past decades. Regional variations exist in the relationship between body mass index (BMI), body fat, and health risks: Asians typically have a lower BMI than people of European descent, but a higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities. However, there is a paucity of evidence for anti-obesity medications (AOMs) in East Asian populations. In this study, we aimed to systematically review evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of AOMs among adults with obesity disease in East Asia, and to assess the feasibility of conducting an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) between the semaglutide and mazindol trials.MethodsThe Embase, MEDLINE, and ICHUSHI databases were searched via the Ovid SP platform for randomized controlled trials, in English or Japanese, reporting data on semaglutide or mazindol therapy with placebo or diet and exercise as comparators. The potential risks of bias in conducting a population-adjusted ITC were determined based on the heterogeneity of potential effect modifiers and variations in study design.ResultsOf 21 publications, 2 were included in this study based on the eligibility criteria. The STEP 6 study established the clinical efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide compared with placebo in the reduction of body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure] among Japanese and South Korean people with obesity disease. Mazindol also proved beneficial in reducing body weight and total cholesterol compared with placebo in Japan. Both semaglutide and mazindol were associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment discontinuation than placebo. An ITC between the two studies was not deemed feasible based on the potential risks of bias.ConclusionsSemaglutide and mazindol are associated with significant body weight reduction among people with obesity in East Asia. Further research based on label indications and up-to-date real-world data among East Asian people with obesity would help determine additional clinical benefits.

Project description:BackgroundIn the absence of head-to-head trials, we performed an indirect treatment comparison of the β3-adrenergic agonists vibegron and mirabegron in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB).MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles related to phase 3, double-blind, controlled trials of vibegron 75 mg and mirabegron 25/50 mg in patients with OAB. Efficacy outcomes included change from baseline at weeks 4, 12, and 52 in mean daily number of total urinary incontinence episodes and micturitions and mean volume voided/micturition. Effect size was computed as placebo-subtracted change from baseline (weeks 4, 12) or active control (tolterodine)-subtracted change from baseline (week 52) for each treatment group. Adverse events (AEs) are presented descriptively.ResultsAfter removal of duplicates, 49 records were identified, and after screening 9 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Vibegron showed significantly greater reduction in mean daily number of total incontinence episodes than mirabegron 25 mg at week 4, mirabegron 50 mg (weeks 4, 52), and tolterodine (weeks 4, 12) (P < 0.05, each) and significantly greater improvement in volume voided versus mirabegron 25 mg (week 12), mirabegron 50 mg (weeks 12, 52), and tolterodine (week 4) (P < 0.05, each). Confidence intervals of point estimates overlapped zero for all other comparisons of vibegron and mirabegron (25 or 50 mg) or tolterodine, indicating no significant differences between treatments for these time/endpoints. Urinary tract infection, hypertension, and dry mouth were the most commonly occurring AEs for vibegron, mirabegron, and tolterodine, respectively, in the short-term trials; hypertension was the most commonly occurring AE with all three treatments in the long-term trials.ConclusionsVibegron was associated with significant improvement in total incontinence episodes versus mirabegron at 4 and 52 weeks and volume voided at 12 and 52 weeks. Improvement in micturitions was similar between vibegron and mirabegron or tolterodine. Incidence of AEs was generally comparable between vibegron and mirabegron.

Project description:IntroductionClinical trials conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with glucose-lowering drugs and examining cardiovascular-related outcomes have yielded mixed results. In this work, we aimed to assess the relative treatment effects of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin and saxagliptin (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors) on cardiovascular-related outcomes in patients with T2DM.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review to identify clinical trials assessing cardiovascular-related outcomes for sitagliptin-, saxagliptin-, and empagliflozin-treated patients with T2DM. A network meta-analysis of indirect treatment comparisons was conducted in a Bayesian framework. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were computed for six cardiovascular-related outcomes to estimate the relative efficacies of these agents.ResultsEmpagliflozin showed a statistically significant superiority over saxagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46-0.80) and sitagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46-0.79) to reduce the risk for cardiovascular-related mortality. For all-cause mortality, empagliflozin showed a statistically significant risk reduction compared to saxagliptin (HR 0.61; 95% CrI 0.49-0.76) and sitagliptin (HR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.54-0.83). A similar pattern was observed in the risk reduction for hospitalization due to heart failure, where empagliflozin was found to be statistically significantly superior to saxagliptin (HR 0.51; 95% CrI 0.37-0.70) and sitagliptin (HR 0.65; 95% CrI 0.47-0.90). Empagliflozin was not statistically significantly different to sitagliptin and saxagliptin with regard to the risk of a composite endpoint composed of death, stroke or myocardial infarction.ConclusionIn this indirect comparison to the DPP-4 inhibitors saxagliptin and sitagliptin, empagliflozin significantly lowered the risk of cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure.FundingBoehringer Ingelheim GmbH.

Project description:IntroductionThe efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs.MethodsPatient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, DAS28-CRP < 2.6, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) < 3.3, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < 2.8 at 12 weeks.ResultsThe analysis included 365 patients from TARGET and aggregated data of 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND. Matching for potential treatment effect baseline modifiers (i.e., age, oral glucocorticoid use, tender joint count of 68 counts, swollen joint count of 66 counts, serum CRP level, and patient global assessment of disease activity) resulted in a reduction of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 166. Following MAIC and STC analysis, the odds of achieving all aforementioned clinical outcomes versus placebo at week 12 were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib.ConclusionIn the MAIC and STC analyses from TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials, the efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib were comparable.

Project description:IntroductionThe tyrosine kinase inhibitors regorafenib and cabozantinib remain the mainstay in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is currently no clear evidence of superiority in efficacy or safety to guide choice between the two treatments.MethodsWe conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison using individual patient data from the RESORCE trial of regorafenib and published aggregate data from the CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib. Second-line HCC patients with prior sorafenib exposure of ≥3 months were included in the analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated to quantify differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes compared were rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), occurring in >10% of patients, and discontinuation or dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs.ResultsAfter matching adjustment for differences in baseline patient characteristics, regorafenib showed a favorable OS (HR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.20) and ∼3-month-longer RMST over cabozantinib (RMST difference, 2.76 months; 95% CI: -1.03, 6.54), although not statistically significant. For PFS, there was no numerical difference in HR (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.49) and no clinically meaningful difference based on RMST analyses (RMST difference, -0.59 months; 95% CI: -1.83, 0.65). Regorafenib showed a significantly lower incidence of discontinuation (risk difference, -9.2%; 95% CI: -17.7%, -0.6%) and dose reductions (-15.2%; 95% CI: -29.0%, -1.5%) due to treatment-related AEs (any grade). Regorafenib was also associated with a lower incidence (not statistically significant) of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (risk difference, -7.1%; 95% CI: -14.7%, 0.4%) and fatigue (-6.3%; 95% CI: -14.6%, 2.0%).ConclusionThis indirect treatment comparison suggests, relative to cabozantinib, that regorafenib could be associated with favorable OS (not statistically significant), lower rates of dose reductions and discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs, and lower rates of severe diarrhea and fatigue.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp: Results of a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets