Review and comparison of methodologies for indirect comparison of clinical trial results: an illustration with ranibizumab and aflibercept.

a Novartis Pharma AG , Basel , Switzerland. b Numerus Ltd , Wokingham , UK. c Centre Ophtalmologique d'Imagerie et de Laser , Paris , France. d Hôpital Avicenne , Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris , Bobigny , France.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2016;(6):793-801
Full text from:

Abstract

AIM: 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.

Methodological quality

Publication Type : Comparative Study ; Meta-Analysis

Metadata