Dataset Information

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and methods

The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary analysis.

Results

The SURPASS-2 refined population comprised 238/245/240 and 240 participants for tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg and semaglutide 1 mg, respectively. The SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only population comprised 222 and 227 participants for semaglutide 1 and 2 mg, respectively. In this aITC, tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus semaglutide 2 mg with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.63, -0.09) and -0.4% (95% CI -0.67, -0.13), respectively. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced body weight versus semaglutide 2 mg with an ETD of -3.15 kg (95% CI -4.84, -1.46) and -5.15 kg (95% CI -6.85, -3.45), respectively. There were no significant differences between tirzepatide 5 mg and semaglutide 2 mg on change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight.

Conclusions

In this aITC, HbA1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg and were similar for tirzepatide 5 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

SUBMITTER: Vadher K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9546430 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

Vadher Karan K Patel Hiren H Mody Reema R Levine Joshua A JA Hoog Meredith M Cheng Alice Yy AY Pantalone Kevin M KM Sapin Hélène H

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20220613 9

<h4>Aim</h4>To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary ana ...[more]

PMID: 35589616

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDeucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, is approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO). This study compared the long-term efficacy of deucravacitinib and adalimumab using results from long-term extension (LTE) trials.MethodsOpen-label LTE trials were identified for an indirect treatment comparison (deucravacitinib: POETYK PSO-LTE [NCT04036435]; adalimumab: REVEAL extension [NCT00195676]). To ensure study design comparability, patients initially randomized to placebo and switched to deucravacitinib or adalimumab after week 16 were compared. The primary outcome was an ≥ 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 112 postrandomization. Secondary outcomes were PASI 75 at week 52 and an ≥ 90% reduction in PASI score (PASI 90) at weeks 52 and 112. Missing PASI data were imputed. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted; individual patient-level data from POETYK PSO-LTE were reweighted to balance baseline characteristics with those from the REVEAL extension.ResultsBefore reweighting, on average, patients in the POETYK PSO-LTE (N = 329) versus the REVEAL (N = 345) extension were older, had a lower body weight, received more prior systemic treatments, and had higher baseline PASI scores and week 16 placebo PASI 75 and PASI 90 response rates. Following reweighting, adjusted week 112 PASI 75 response rates were significantly higher for deucravacitinib versus adalimumab (67.2% vs. 54.0%; mean difference [95% CI], 13.2 [4.0-22.5] percentage points). Deucravacitinib had a numerically higher adjusted week 112 PASI 90 response rate (41.3% vs. 34.0%; mean difference [95% CI], 7.3 [-2.0 to 16.7] percentage points). The treatments had similar week 52 adjusted PASI 75 and PASI 90 response rates.ConclusionIn this interim analysis, adults with moderate to severe PsO had higher long-term response rates at 2 years when treated with deucravacitinib versus adalimumab. Deucravacitinib response rates remained stable whereas adalimumab response rates declined in year 2.

Project description:BackgroundAnchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.MethodsA modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.ResultsDespite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.ConclusionsTwo-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial.

Project description:IntroductionIbrutinib (ibr) monotherapy and the combination of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (obi) are approved for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). No trials directly comparing their efficacy are available. Therefore a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to provide insight into their relative efficacy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). MAIC attempts to adjust for between-trial differences in factors known or suspected to influence treatment effects, to minimize bias.MethodsA MAIC within a Bayesian framework was conducted using individual patient data from the RESONATE-2 study of ibr versus chlorambucil and published data from the CLL11 study of obi versus chlorambucil. Both studies were conducted in patients ineligible for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy. After matching, the reweighted adjusted relative efficacy measure of ibr versus chlorambucil from RESONATE-2 [hazard ratio (HR), 95% credible interval (CrI)] was compared with that of obi versus chlorambucil from CLL11 for each endpoint, using a Bayesian indirect comparison.ResultsOur results suggest that in a population with similar average baseline characteristics to CLL11, ibr would improve PFS and OS outcomes compared to obi. Before matching, the HRs for ibr versus obi were 0.48 [CrI = 0.22-1.02, p(HR <1) = 97%], 0.85 [CrI = 0.44-1.63, p(HR <1) = 69%], and 0.40 [CrI = 0.10-1.54, p(HR <1) = 91%] for PFS by investigator assessment, PFS by independent review committee, and OS, respectively. After matching on all available characteristics the HRs decreased to 0.12 [CrI = 0.02-0.97, p(HR <1) = 98%], 0.24 [CrI = 0.04-1.35, p(HR <1) = 95%], and 0.21 [CrI = <0.01-8.89, p(HR <1) = 79%], respectively. There was a large variance around the treatment effect for OS due to the low number of deaths.ConclusionOur analysis suggests that ibrutinib is highly likely to provide greater PFS benefit than obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in older or less fit patients with previously untreated CLL. There is also an indication of improvement in OS, albeit with a higher uncertainty due to the low number of events.FundingJanssen-Cilag Ltd.

Project description:BackgroundTo date, the efficacy of the androgen receptor inhibitors enzalutamide and apalutamide for the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) has not been compared directly in a clinical trial setting. Indirect comparisons can be used to assess relative efficacy and provide important information to guide treatment decisions. PROSPER and SPARTAN were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials in patients with nmCRPC with overall similar study designs and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison, based on the final data from the PROSPER and SPARTAN studies, we assessed the comparative efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide, both plus androgen deprivation therapy.MethodsUsing placebo as the common comparator, individual patient data from PROSPER were matched to the aggregate patient data from SPARTAN and efficacy endpoints from PROSPER were re-weighted accordingly. Patient baseline characteristics and endpoints were clinically and statistically tested to identify potential effect modifiers, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Hazard ratios for overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and time to chemotherapy (TTCx) were re-estimated for PROSPER using weighted Cox proportional hazards models and indirectly compared with those of SPARTAN using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.ResultsEstimated hazard ratios [95% credible interval (CrI)] for enzalutamide versus apalutamide were 0.80 (95% CrI 0.58-1.10) for OS, 0.94 (95% CrI 0.69-1.29) for MFS2, and 0.90 (95% CrI 0.63-1.29) for TTCx. Similar results were seen for sensitivity analyses conducted for OS and MFS. Bayesian probability analyses showed a 91.7% favoring enzalutamide for OS, 65.1% for MFS, and 71.4% for TTCx.ConclusionsThe results of this matching-adjusted indirect comparison of final data from PROSPER and SPARTAN indicate comparable efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide with potentially a greater probability of longer MFS, OS, and TTCx in patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide versus apalutamide.

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:IntroductionA previous network meta-analysis established 16-week relative efficacy with bimekizumab, an inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, versus other treatments for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), including the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab and ixekizumab. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) assessed 52-week relative efficacy of bimekizumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab.MethodsIndividual patient data from BE MOBILE 2 (bimekizumab 160 mg; N = 220) were matched to pooled summary data from MEASURE 1/2/3/4 (secukinumab 150 mg), MEASURE 3 (secukinumab 300 mg; escalated dose for inadequate responders), COAST-V (ixekizumab) and COAST-V/-W (ixekizumab). BE MOBILE 2 patients were reweighted using propensity score weights based on age, sex, ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, weight, baseline ASDAS and BASFI (secukinumab) and baseline BASDAI (ixekizumab), and 52-week efficacy outcomes from the trial recalculated. Odds ratios (OR) or mean difference for unanchored comparisons are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAt week 52, MAIC demonstrated that patients may have higher likelihood of improvement in key efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus secukinumab 150 mg (e.g., ASAS40: [OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.05, 2.10); p = 0.026]; effective sample size [ESS] = 177). Differences in 52-week efficacy outcomes between bimekizumab and secukinumab 300 mg dose escalation were non-significant (ESS = 120). Bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg comparisons (COAST-V only; ESS = 84) also suggested that differences were non-significant for most key efficacy outcomes. Other ixekizumab comparisons (COAST-V/-W; ESS = 45) suggested bimekizumab may have higher comparative efficacy for many of the same efficacy outcomes, however ixekizumab analyses were limited by poor population overlap, likely due to the greater proportion of patients with previous TNFi exposure.ConclusionsPatients treated with bimekizumab may have a higher likelihood of achieving improved longer-term efficacy versus secukinumab 150 mg, suggesting bimekizumab may be a favorable therapeutic option for r-axSpA. Differences in efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg were mostly non-significant, depending on the populations considered.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets