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

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.