Review and comparison of methodologies for indirect comparison of clinical trial results: an illustration with ranibizumab and aflibercept. (1st November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Regnier, Stephane A.; Alsop, Jonathan; Wright, Jonathan; Nixon, Richard; Staines, Harry; Fajnkuchen, Franck
• Is Part Of: Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. Volume 16:Number 6(2016)
• Page Start: 793
• Page End: 801
• Publication Date: 2016-11-01
• Subjects: Confounders -- indirect treatment comparison -- inverse probability weighting -- regression -- stratified sampling; Pharmacology -- Economic aspects -- Periodicals; 338.47615105
• DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2016.1165609
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-7167

Abstract

ABSTRACT: A im : To review and compare methods for indirect comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema. Methods : Post-stratification, inverse probability weighting based on simulated data, weight optimization, and regression model techniques were used to compare pooled individual patient-level data from the RESTORE and RESPOND (ranibizumab 0.5 mg as needed after 3 initial monthly doses) studies with summary-level data from the VIVID and VISTA (aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks after 5 initial monthly doses, 2q8) studies. The impact of adjusting for up to two baseline characteristics was assessed. Results : All methods provided similar results. After adjustment for baseline best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness, no statistically significant difference in average gain in baseline best-corrected visual acuity from baseline at month 12 was found between ranibizumab 0.5 mg and aflibercept 2q8. Conclusions : Weight optimization and regression methods are useful options to adjust for more than one baseline characteristic.