Nakahara Takeshi, Murota Hiroyuki, Matsukawa Miyuki, Takeda Hiroe, Zhang Yilong, Kondo Tomohiro
Department of Dermatology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Department of Dermatology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan.
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 Oct;14(10):2905-2916. doi: 10.1007/s13555-024-01282-1. Epub 2024 Oct 4.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic condition with an increasing incidence in Japan. Difamilast and delgocitinib are both new topical drugs for AD proven to be efficacious and safe in phases 2 and 3 clinical trials in Japan. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing their efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients by severity and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib among patients with moderate-to-severe AD using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).
Phase 3 clinical trials of difamilast and delgocitinib for treating AD were included. The trials had similar designs but differed in baseline population characteristics. Anchored MAIC was used to align the baseline characteristics and calculate clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was to determine severity stages of the proportion of patients with AD through Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), while the secondary outcome included comparing other clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib.
A total of 340 patients were selected (170 each received difamilast and placebo) from the difamilast trial, with 158 (106 received delgocitinib; 52 received placebo) from the delgocitinib trial for the analysis. After matching patients from the difamilast trial with those from the delgocitinib trial, the effective sample sizes (ESS) reduced to 32.7-43.3% of the original difamilast (treatment/placebo) patients. At week 4, the ESS in the difamilast group demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the distribution of AD severity stages, as per EASI scores, compared with the delgocitinib group. In addition, no significant differences were found in modified EASI (mEASI) scores, mEASI 50 and 75 scores, and safety outcomes between the two treatments.
The anchored MAIC analysis indicates that difamilast treatment, like delgocitinib, is a useful option for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe AD in Japan.
特应性皮炎(AD)是一种在日本发病率不断上升的慢性疾病。地法米司特和地尔戈替尼都是用于AD的新型局部用药,在日本的2期和3期临床试验中已证明其有效且安全。然而,尚无比较它们疗效和安全性的直接对比试验。本研究的目的是通过匹配调整间接比较(MAIC)确定中重度AD患者中不同严重程度的患者比例,并比较地法米司特与地尔戈替尼的临床疗效和安全性。
纳入地法米司特和地尔戈替尼治疗AD的3期临床试验。这些试验设计相似,但基线人群特征不同。采用锚定MAIC来调整基线特征并计算临床结局。主要结局是通过湿疹面积和严重程度指数(EASI)确定AD患者不同严重程度阶段的比例,次要结局包括比较地法米司特与地尔戈替尼的其他临床疗效和安全性。
从地法米司特试验中总共选取了340例患者(各170例接受地法米司特和安慰剂),从地尔戈替尼试验中选取了158例(106例接受地尔戈替尼;52例接受安慰剂)进行分析。将地法米司特试验中的患者与地尔戈替尼试验中的患者进行匹配后,有效样本量(ESS)降至原地法米司特(治疗组/安慰剂组)患者的32.7 - 43.3%。在第4周时,根据EASI评分,地法米司特组的ESS在AD严重程度阶段分布方面与地尔戈替尼组相比无统计学显著差异。此外,两种治疗方法在改良EASI(mEASI)评分、mEASI 50和75评分以及安全性结局方面均未发现显著差异。
锚定MAIC分析表明,与地尔戈替尼一样,地法米司特治疗是日本中重度AD患者治疗的一种有效选择。