Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ozanimod and Dimethyl Fumarate for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.
Journal
CNS drugs
ISSN: 1179-1934
Titre abrégé: CNS Drugs
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9431220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
accepted:
10
03
2021
pubmed:
14
4
2021
medline:
1
2
2022
entrez:
13
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has grown substantially. As a result, patients, healthcare providers, and insurers are increasingly interested in comparative efficacy and safety evaluations to distinguish between treatment options, but head-to-head studies between DMTs are limited. The aim of the current study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes with the DMTs ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to adjust for cross-trial differences in study design and population. A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ozanimod compared with DMF. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for ozanimod were obtained from the SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials, and aggregate-level patient data (APD) for DMF were obtained from CONFIRM and DEFINE. A MAIC is used to weight IPD to APD based on important baseline patient characteristics considered to be effect modifiers or prognostic factors in order to balance the covariate distribution to establish more homogenous trial populations. Once trial populations are determined to be sufficiently homogenous, outcomes of interest are estimated and used to generate treatment effects between the weighted IPD and APD. We used MAIC methodology to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of interest between ozanimod 1.0 mg once daily (OD) and DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID), including confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 and 6 months, annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs. After matching patient data, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and those receiving DMF. Compared with DMF, ozanimod demonstrated significantly improved CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.86), ARR (rate ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.97), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.83), overall AEs (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08-0.16), SAEs (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.19-0.39), and discontinuations (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07-0.17). CDP at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two agents (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.26). After adjustment of baseline patient characteristics, the MAIC demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of ozanimod 1.0 mg OD was superior to that of DMF 240 mg BID. Although a MAIC is less likely to produce biased estimates than a naïve or a standard indirect treatment comparison via a common comparator, limitations include potential confounding due to unobserved and thus unaccounted for baseline differences. Ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are disease-modifying therapies used to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Comparative efficacy and safety evaluation is important to key patients, healthcare providers, and health insurers; however, head-to-head studies between MS therapies are limited. In this analysis, we used an indirect treatment comparison method, specifically a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), to compare results of clinical trials of ozanimod and DMF. In this MAIC, findings suggested that ozanimod was associated with greater reductions of relapses, a lowered risk of disability progression at 3 months, and improved safety outcomes compared with DMF. Although MAICs were conducted while adjusting for important treatment-effect modifiers and/or prognostic factors, the possibility of confounding as a result of unobserved baseline differences remains. Such an issue can be resolved only by conducting a head-to-head treatment comparison in a randomized clinical trial.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has grown substantially. As a result, patients, healthcare providers, and insurers are increasingly interested in comparative efficacy and safety evaluations to distinguish between treatment options, but head-to-head studies between DMTs are limited.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the current study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes with the DMTs ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to adjust for cross-trial differences in study design and population.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ozanimod compared with DMF. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for ozanimod were obtained from the SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials, and aggregate-level patient data (APD) for DMF were obtained from CONFIRM and DEFINE. A MAIC is used to weight IPD to APD based on important baseline patient characteristics considered to be effect modifiers or prognostic factors in order to balance the covariate distribution to establish more homogenous trial populations. Once trial populations are determined to be sufficiently homogenous, outcomes of interest are estimated and used to generate treatment effects between the weighted IPD and APD. We used MAIC methodology to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of interest between ozanimod 1.0 mg once daily (OD) and DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID), including confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 and 6 months, annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs.
RESULTS
After matching patient data, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and those receiving DMF. Compared with DMF, ozanimod demonstrated significantly improved CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.86), ARR (rate ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.97), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.83), overall AEs (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08-0.16), SAEs (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.19-0.39), and discontinuations (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07-0.17). CDP at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two agents (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.26).
CONCLUSIONS
After adjustment of baseline patient characteristics, the MAIC demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of ozanimod 1.0 mg OD was superior to that of DMF 240 mg BID. Although a MAIC is less likely to produce biased estimates than a naïve or a standard indirect treatment comparison via a common comparator, limitations include potential confounding due to unobserved and thus unaccounted for baseline differences.
Ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are disease-modifying therapies used to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Comparative efficacy and safety evaluation is important to key patients, healthcare providers, and health insurers; however, head-to-head studies between MS therapies are limited. In this analysis, we used an indirect treatment comparison method, specifically a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), to compare results of clinical trials of ozanimod and DMF. In this MAIC, findings suggested that ozanimod was associated with greater reductions of relapses, a lowered risk of disability progression at 3 months, and improved safety outcomes compared with DMF. Although MAICs were conducted while adjusting for important treatment-effect modifiers and/or prognostic factors, the possibility of confounding as a result of unobserved baseline differences remains. Such an issue can be resolved only by conducting a head-to-head treatment comparison in a randomized clinical trial.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) are disease-modifying therapies used to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Comparative efficacy and safety evaluation is important to key patients, healthcare providers, and health insurers; however, head-to-head studies between MS therapies are limited. In this analysis, we used an indirect treatment comparison method, specifically a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), to compare results of clinical trials of ozanimod and DMF. In this MAIC, findings suggested that ozanimod was associated with greater reductions of relapses, a lowered risk of disability progression at 3 months, and improved safety outcomes compared with DMF. Although MAICs were conducted while adjusting for important treatment-effect modifiers and/or prognostic factors, the possibility of confounding as a result of unobserved baseline differences remains. Such an issue can be resolved only by conducting a head-to-head treatment comparison in a randomized clinical trial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33847901
doi: 10.1007/s40263-021-00805-0
pii: 10.1007/s40263-021-00805-0
pmc: PMC8310468
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Indans
0
Oxadiazoles
0
Sphingosine 1 Phosphate Receptor Modulators
0
Dimethyl Fumarate
FO2303MNI2
ozanimod
Z80293URPV
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.fgshare.14182724']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
795-804Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Sorensen PS, Thompson AJ, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2014;83(3):278–86.
pubmed: 4117366
pmcid: 4117366
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560
Finkelsztejn A. Multiple sclerosis: overview of disease-modifying agents. Perspect Medicin Chem. 2014;6:65–72.
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. European Medicines Agency, London, UK. 2015. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicinal-products-treatment-multiple-sclerosis_en-0.pdf . Accessed 25 June 2020.
Olek M, Howard J. Clinical presentation, course, and prognosis of multiple sclerosis in adults. UpToDate. 2019. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/clinical-presentation-course-and-prognosis-of-multiple-sclerosis-in-adults . Accessed 25 June 2020.
Giovannoni G, Butzkueven H, Dhib-Jalbut S, Hobart J, Kobelt G, Pepper G, et al. Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;9(Suppl 1):S5–48.
pubmed: 27640924
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2016.07.003
pmcid: 27640924
Lublin FD, Baier M, Cutter G. Effect of relapses on development of residual deficit in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2003;61(11):1528–32.
pubmed: 14663037
doi: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000096175.39831.21
pmcid: 14663037
Doshi A, Chataway J. Multiple sclerosis, a treatable disease. Clin Med (Lond). 2017;17(6):530–6.
pubmed: 29196354
pmcid: 6297710
doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-6-530
Gehr S, Kaiser T, Kreutz R, Ludwig W-D, Paul F. Suggestions for improving the design of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis—results of a systematic analysis of completed phase III trials. EPMA J. 2019;10(4):425–36.
pubmed: 31832116
pmcid: 6883016
doi: 10.1007/s13167-019-00192-z
Straus Farber R, Harel A, Lublin F. Novel agents for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Annu Rev Med. 2016;67:309–21.
pubmed: 26394285
doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-052814-023415
pmcid: 26394285
Fox RJ, Miller DH, Phillips JT, Hutchinson M, Havrdova E, Kita M, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1087–97.
pubmed: 22992072
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1206328
pmcid: 22992072
Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1098–107.
pubmed: 22992073
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114287
pmcid: 22992073
Wright K, Winkler MD, Newton BD, Sormani MP, Okuda DT. Patient outcomes influenced by reduced lymphocyte counts after dimethyl fumarate initiation. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2017;4(6):e397.
pubmed: 28959705
pmcid: 5614725
doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000397
Longbrake EE, Ramsbottom MJ, Cantoni C, Ghezzi L, Cross AH, Piccio L. Dimethyl fumarate selectively reduces memory T cells in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler. 2016;22(8):1061–70.
pubmed: 26459150
doi: 10.1177/1352458515608961
pmcid: 26459150
Longbrake EE, Cantoni C, Chahin S, Cignarella F, Cross AH, Piccio L. Dimethyl fumarate induces changes in B- and T-lymphocyte function independent of the effects on absolute lymphocyte count. Mult Scler. 2018;24(6):728–38.
pubmed: 28480794
doi: 10.1177/1352458517707069
pmcid: 28480794
Lundy SK, Wu Q, Wang Q, Dowling CA, Taitano SH, Mao G, et al. Dimethyl fumarate treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis influences B-cell subsets. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2016;3(2):e211.
pubmed: 27006972
pmcid: 4784801
doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000211
Wu Q, Wang Q, Mao G, Dowling CA, Lundy SK, Mao-Draayer Y. Dimethyl fumarate selectively reduces memory T cells and shifts the balance between Th1/Th17 and Th2 in multiple sclerosis patients. J Immunol. 2017;198(8):3069–80.
pubmed: 28258191
doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601532
pmcid: 28258191
Li R, Rezk A, Ghadiri M, Luessi F, Zipp F, Li H, et al. Dimethyl fumarate treatment mediates an anti-inflammatory shift in B cell subsets of patients with multiple sclerosis. J Immunol. 2017;198(2):691–8.
pubmed: 27974457
doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601649
pmcid: 27974457
Longbrake EE, Mao-Draayer Y, Cascione M, Zielinski T, Bame E, Brassat D et al. Dimethyl fumarate treatment shifts the immune environment toward an anti-inflammatory cell profile while maintaining protective humoral immunity. Mult Scler. 2020:1352458520937282.
Piroli GG, Manuel AM, Patel T, Walla MD, Shi L, Lanci SA, et al. Identification of novel protein targets of dimethyl fumarate modification in neurons and astrocytes reveals actions independent of Nrf2 stabilization. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2019;18(3):504–19.
doi: 10.1074/mcp.RA118.000922
Linker RA, Lee DH, Ryan S, van Dam AM, Conrad R, Bista P, et al. Fumaric acid esters exert neuroprotective effects in neuroinflammation via activation of the Nrf2 antioxidant pathway. Brain. 2011;134(Pt 3):678–92.
pubmed: 21354971
doi: 10.1093/brain/awq386
pmcid: 21354971
Parodi B, Rossi S, Morando S, Cordano C, Bragoni A, Motta C, et al. Fumarates modulate microglia activation through a novel HCAR2 signaling pathway and rescue synaptic dysregulation in inflamed CNS. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;130(2):279–95.
pubmed: 25920452
pmcid: 4503882
doi: 10.1007/s00401-015-1422-3
Gopal S, Mikulskis A, Gold R, Fox RJ, Dawson KT, Amaravadi L. Evidence of activation of the Nrf2 pathway in multiple sclerosis patients treated with delayed-release dimethyl fumarate in the phase 3 DEFINE and CONFIRM studies. Mult Scler. 2017;23(14):1875–83.
pubmed: 28156185
doi: 10.1177/1352458517690617
pmcid: 28156185
Huang H, Taraboletti A, Shriver LP. Dimethyl fumarate modulates antioxidant and lipid metabolism in oligodendrocytes. Redox Biol. 2015;5:169–75.
pubmed: 25967672
pmcid: 4427661
doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2015.04.011
Scannevin RH, Chollate S, Jung MY, Shackett M, Patel H, Bista P, et al. Fumarates promote cytoprotection of central nervous system cells against oxidative stress via the nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 pathway. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2012;341(1):274–84.
pubmed: 22267202
doi: 10.1124/jpet.111.190132
pmcid: 22267202
Chen H, Assmann JC, Krenz A, Rahman M, Grimm M, Karsten CM, et al. Hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor 2 mediates dimethyl fumarate’s protective effect in EAE. J Clin Investig. 2014;124(5):2188–92.
pubmed: 24691444
pmcid: 4001545
doi: 10.1172/JCI72151
Kastrati I, Siklos MI, Calderon-Gierszal EL, El-Shennawy L, Georgieva G, Thayer EN, et al. Dimethyl fumarate inhibits the nuclear factor κB pathway in breast cancer cells by covalent modification of p65 protein. J Biol Chem. 2016;291(7):3639–47.
pubmed: 26683377
doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.679704
pmcid: 26683377
Carlström KE, Ewing E, Granqvist M, Gyllenberg A, Aeinehband S, Enoksson SL, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of dimethyl fumarate in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis associates with ROS pathway in monocytes. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3081.
pubmed: 31300673
pmcid: 6626021
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11139-3
Lückel C, Picard F, Raifer H, Campos Carrascosa L, Guralnik A, Zhang Y, et al. IL-17
pubmed: 31844089
pmcid: 6915776
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13731-z
Saida T, Yamamura T, Kondo T, Yun J, Yang M, Li J, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis from East Asia and other countries. BMC Neurol. 2019;19(1):5.
pubmed: 30616596
pmcid: 6322309
doi: 10.1186/s12883-018-1220-3
Tecfidera [package insert]. Cambridge. MA: Biogen Inc.; 2020.
European Medicines Agency. Tecfidera EPAR summary for the public. European Medicines Agency, London, UK. 2014. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/tecfidera-epar-product-information_en.pdf . Accessed 16 Sept 2020.
Scott FL, Clemons B, Brooks J, Brahmachary E, Powell R, Dedman H, et al. Ozanimod (RPC1063) is a potent sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor-1 (S1P
pubmed: 26990079
pmcid: 4867749
doi: 10.1111/bph.13476
Brinkmann V, Cyster JG, Hla T. FTY720: sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-1 in the control of lymphocyte egress and endothelial barrier function. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(7):1019–25.
pubmed: 15196057
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00476.x
pmcid: 15196057
Chiba K. FTY720, a new class of immunomodulator, inhibits lymphocyte egress from secondary lymphoid tissues and thymus by agonistic activity at sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors. Pharmacol Ther. 2005;108(3):308–19.
pubmed: 15951022
doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2005.05.002
pmcid: 15951022
Tsai HC, Nguyen K, Hashemi E, Engleman E, Hla T, Han MH. Myeloid sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 is important for CNS autoimmunity and neuroinflammation. J Autoimmun. 2019;105:102290.
pubmed: 31202617
doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2019.06.001
pmcid: 31202617
Liu G, Yang K, Burns S, Shrestha S, Chi H. The S1P
pubmed: 20852647
pmcid: 2958252
doi: 10.1038/ni.1939
Liao JJ, Huang MC, Goetzl EJ. Cutting edge: alternative signaling of Th17 cell development by sphingosine 1-phosphate. J Immunol. 2007;178(9):5425–8.
pubmed: 17442922
doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.9.5425
pmcid: 17442922
Garris CS, Wu L, Acharya S, Arac A, Blaho VA, Huang Y, et al. Defective sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1P
pubmed: 24076635
pmcid: 4014310
doi: 10.1038/ni.2730
Lee H, Deng J, Kujawski M, Yang C, Liu Y, Herrmann A, et al. STAT3-induced S1PR1 expression is crucial for persistent STAT3 activation in tumors. Nat Med. 2010;16(12):1421–8.
pubmed: 21102457
pmcid: 3088498
doi: 10.1038/nm.2250
van Doorn R, Lopes Pinheiro MA, Kooij G, Lakeman K, van het Hof B, van der Pol SM, et al. Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 5 mediates the immune quiescence of the human brain endothelial barrier. J Neuroinflamm. 2012;9:133.
Nystad AE, Lereim RR, Wergeland S, Oveland E, Myhr KM, Bø L, et al. Fingolimod downregulates brain sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 levels but does not promote remyelination or neuroprotection in the cuprizone model. J Neuroimmunol. 2020;339:577091.
pubmed: 31739156
doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2019.577091
pmcid: 31739156
Jaillard C, Harrison S, Stankoff B, Aigrot MS, Calver AR, Duddy G, et al. Edg8/S1P5: an oligodendroglial receptor with dual function on process retraction and cell survival. J Neurosci. 2005;25(6):1459–69.
pubmed: 15703400
pmcid: 6726002
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4645-04.2005
Rasche L, Paul F. Ozanimod for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2018;19(18):2073–86.
pubmed: 30407868
doi: 10.1080/14656566.2018.1540592
pmcid: 30407868
Bristol Myers Squibb. Zeposia [package insert]. Princeton: Bristol Myers Squibb; 2020.
Cohen JA, Comi G, Selmaj KW, Bar-Or A, Arnold DL, Steinman L, et al. Safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RADIANCE): a multicentre, randomised, 24-month, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(11):1021–33.
pubmed: 31492652
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30238-8
pmcid: 31492652
Comi G, Kappos L, Selmaj KW, Bar-Or A, Arnold DL, Steinman L, et al. Safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis (SUNBEAM): a multicentre, randomised, minimum 12-month, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(11):1009–20.
pubmed: 31492651
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30239-X
pmcid: 31492651
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(2):200–11.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X17725740
Fox RJ, Chan A, Zhang A, Xiao J, Levison D, Lewin JB, et al. Comparative effectiveness using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between delayed-release dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(2):175–83.
pubmed: 27733070
doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1248380
pmcid: 27733070
Berardi A, Siddiqui MK, Treharne C, Harty G, Wong SL. Estimating the comparative efficacy of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease modifying treatments in active relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: adjusting for patient characteristics using meta-regression and matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison approaches. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(8):1371–8.
pubmed: 30786783
doi: 10.1080/03007995.2019.1585779
pmcid: 30786783
Swallow E, Patterson-Lomba O, Yin L, Mehta R, Pelletier C, Kao D, et al. Comparative safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus fingolimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Comp Eff Res. 2020;9(4):275–85.
pubmed: 31948278
doi: 10.2217/cer-2019-0169
pmcid: 31948278
Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, Xie J, Lu M, Hodgkins PS, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–7.
pubmed: 22999145
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.004
pmcid: 22999145
Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935–45.
pubmed: 20831302
doi: 10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000
pmcid: 20831302
Prosperini L, Lucchini M, Haggiag S, Bellantonio P, Bianco A, Buscarinu MC, et al. Fingolimod vs. dimethyl fumarate in multiple sclerosis: a real-world propensity score-matched study. Neurology. 2018;91(2):e153–61.
pubmed: 29875218
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005772
pmcid: 29875218
Ishak KJ, Rael M, Hicks M, Mittal S, Eatock M, Valle JW. Relative effectiveness of sunitinib versus everolimus in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an updated matching-adjusted indirect comparison. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(10):947–58.
pubmed: 30168349
doi: 10.2217/cer-2018-0020
pmcid: 30168349
Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.
pubmed: 22297116
pmcid: 3313891
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9
DigitizeIt. Digitizer software—digitize a scanned graph or chart into (x,y)-data. DigitizeIt. 2020. https://www.digitizeit.de/ . Accessed 02 July 2020.
Zeposia [summary of product characteristics]. Utrecht, Netherlands: Celgene Distribution B.V.; 2020.
Zhang Y, Salter A, Wallstrom E, Cutter G, Stuve O. Evolution of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019;12:1756286419826547.
pubmed: 30833985
pmcid: 6391540
doi: 10.1177/1756286419826547
Kalincik T. Multiple sclerosis relapses: epidemiology, outcomes and management: a systematic review. Neuroepidemiology. 2015;44(4):199–214.
pubmed: 25997994
doi: 10.1159/000382130
pmcid: 25997994
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: Methods for Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Submissions to NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit, Sheffield, UK. 2016. http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Population-adjustment-TSD-FINAL-ref-rerun.pdf . Accessed 25 June 2020.