Indirect treatment comparisons can be limited by cross-trial differences. By combining IPD with published aggregate data, MAIC can reduce observed cross-trial differences and provide decision makers with timely comparative evidence.

The clinical benefits of novel treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis are well established, but wide variations exist in patient response across different therapies. In the absence of head-to-head randomized trials, meta-analyses synthesizing data from multiple studies are needed to assess comparative efficacy among psoriasis treatments.OBJECTIVE To estimate the relative short-term and long-term efficacy of biologics and oral agents for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.DATA SOURCES A systematic literature review was conducted on December 4, 2017, and updated on September 17, 2018. The Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register databases were included.STUDY SELECTION Phase 2, 3, or 4 randomized clinical trials of treatments licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for adults with moderate to severe psoriasis with data on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index assessment of 75%, 90%, and 100% reductions (PASI 75, 90, and 100) at 10 to 16 weeks (short-term efficacy) or 44 to 60 weeks (long-term efficacy) from baseline.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were extracted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate short-term PASI response rates; to account for variation across trials, an ordinal model that adjusted for reference arm response was implemented. The long-term PASI rates were estimated via a traditional meta-analysis. PASI 75,90, and 100 response rates at 10 to 16 weeks and 44 to 60 weeks from baseline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES RESULTSSixty trials meeting all inclusion criteria were included. At weeks 10 to 16, the highest PASI 90 rates were seen with risankizumab-rzaa (71.6%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 67.5%-75.4%), brodalumab (70.8%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), ixekizumab (70.6%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), and guselkumab (67.3%; 62.5%-71.9%). At weeks 44 to 60, the treatments with the highest PASI 90 rates were risankizumab-rzaa (79.4%, 95% CI, 75.5%-82.9%), guselkumab (76.5%; 95% CI, 72.1%-80.5%), brodalumab (74.0%; 95% CI, 69.3%-78.1%), and ixekizumab (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.9%-77.5%). Findings were consistent for short-term and long-term PASI 75 and 100 responses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study provides an assessment of the comparative efficacy among treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The meta-analysis suggests that brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab-rzaa were associated with the highest PASI response rates in both short-term and long-term therapy.

Introduction:The clinical benefits of biologic and oral treatments for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis are well-established, but efficacy outcomes can vary across therapies. Comparative efficacy analysis can be highly informative in clinical settings with multiple therapeutic options. This study assessed the short-term and long-term comparative efficacy of biologic and oral treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified phase 2/3/4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through to 1 July 2020 for Food and Drug Administration-or European Medicines Agency-licensed treatments for moderate-tosevere psoriasis. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 response rates at the end of the primary response (short-term: 10--16 weeks from baseline) and maintenance periods (long-term: 48-52 weeks from baseline) were estimated using Bayesian network metaanalysis. Surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were estimated to present the relative ranking of treatments. Results: In the short term (N = 71 RCTs), the PASI 90 response rates were highest for ixekizumab (72.

The sustained PFS benefit and long-term safety of ELd at 4 years, similar to those observed at 2 and 3 years, support ELd as a valuable therapeutic option for the long-term treatment of patients with RRMM.

Background:The comparative safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment have not been well studied.Objective: To compare the short-term (12-16 weeks) and long-term (48-56 weeks) safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments.Methods: A systematic literature review of phase II-IV randomized controlled trials of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments was conducted (cutoff: July 1, 2020). Any adverse events (AEs), any serious AEs, and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were compared using Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs).Results: Fifty-two and 7, respectively, randomized controlled trials were included in the short-and longterm NMAs, respectively. In the short-term NMA, the rates of any AEs were the lowest for tildrakizumab (posterior median: 46.0%), certolizumab (46.2%), and etanercept (49.1%). The rates of any serious AE were the lowest for certolizumab (0.8%), risankizumab (1.2%), and etanercept (1.6%). The rates of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were the lowest for risankizumab (0.5%), tildrakizumab (1.0%), and guselkumab (1.5%). In the long-term NMA, risankizumab had the lowest rates of all 3 outcomes (67.5%, 4.4%, and 1.0%, respectively) and the most favorable benefit-risk profile. Limitations:The results may not be generalizable to real-world populations.Conclusions: Antieinterleukin 23 agents were associated with low rates of safety events. Risankizumab had the most favorable benefit-risk profile in the long term.

An estimated 3.7 million US adults had hyperkalemia in 2014, and this prevalence rate has increased since 2010. In patients with CKD and/or heart failure, the annual prevalence of hyperkalemia was 6.35% in 2014, and about half of all patients with hyperkalemia have either CKD and/or heart failure.

A model adjusted for reference arm response rates was found to fit clinical trial data significantly better than unadjusted models.

IntroductionThere are limited data on the cost of hyperkalemia.MethodsThis retrospective analysis of the Truven MarketScan claims database assessed the economic burden of hyperkalemia among selected adult patients with hyperkalemia and matched controls.ResultsA total of 39,626 cases (patients with hyperkalemia) were matched to 39,626 controls (patients without hyperkalemia) based on age, dialysis, chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage, heart failure, and renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor use. Compared with controls, cases incurred $4128 (95% confidence interval [CI] $3893–$4363) higher 30-day total health care costs ($5994 vs. $1865) and $15,983 (95% CI $15,026–$16,940) higher 1-year costs ($31,844 vs. $15,861). Among 11,221 matched pairs of patients with CKD and/or heart failure, cases incurred $5553 (95% CI $5059–$6047) higher 30-day total health care costs ($8165 vs. $2612) and $24,133 (95% CI $21,748–$26,518) higher 1-year costs ($48,994 vs. $24,861) than controls. The multivariable adjusted 1-year total health care cost difference was $15,606 (95% CI $14,648–$16,576) among all patients and $25,156 (95% CI $23,529–$26,757) among patients with CKD and/or heart failure. Cases had higher resource utilization rates including inpatient admissions (30-day: 0.14 vs. 0.03; 1-year: 0.44 vs. 0.19), outpatient visits (30-day: 3.33 vs. 2.28; 1-year: 26.58 vs. 18.53), and emergency department visits (30-day: 0.16 vs. 0.06; 1-year: 0.86 vs. 0.50) (all P < 0.001). When hospitalized, cases stayed 1.51 days (95% CI 1.22–1.80) longer and were 40% more likely to be readmitted.ConclusionThese data indicate that hyperkalemia is associated with a significant economic burden on afflicted patients and the health care system.