Efficacy and Safety of Somapacitan Relative to Somatrogon and Lonapegsomatropin in Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis
Lasse de Fries Jensen, Vasileios Antavalis, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Annachiara Rossi, Alberto Pietropoli, Michael Højby
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Somapacitan Relative to Somatrogon and Lonapegsomatropin in Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis","authors":"Lasse de Fries Jensen, Vasileios Antavalis, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Annachiara Rossi, Alberto Pietropoli, Michael Højby","doi":"10.1007/s12325-024-02966-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Since direct comparisons of long-acting growth hormones (LAGHs) are lacking, analyses were performed to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of somapacitan versus somatrogon and lonapegsomatropin in children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies of once-weekly LAGHs for the treatment of pediatric GHD. Indirect comparisons (ICs) using a Bayesian hierarchical network meta-analysis and a random effects model were performed using daily growth hormone (GH) 0.034 mg/kg/day (base case) or 0.024–0.034 mg/kg/day (alternative analyses) as the common comparator to compare height outcomes to 52 weeks [annualized height velocity, height velocity standard deviation score (SDS), and height SDS]. Identified evidence did not allow IC of safety or longer-term efficacy outcomes so these were qualitatively described.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The SLR identified two somapacitan trials, three somatrogon trials (one included in alternative analyses only), and one lonapegsomatropin trial comparing the LAGH with daily GH in treatment-naïve pre-pubertal children for IC. ICs revealed no differences at 52 weeks between somapacitan versus somatrogon and lonapegsomatropin, as well as daily GH, with respect to all growth outcomes considered in children with GHD. All three LAGHs had sustained efficacy and were generally well tolerated, with comparable efficacy and safety to daily GH, with the exception of observed injection site pain for somatrogon.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>No efficacy and safety differences were identified in comparisons of once weekly somapacitan versus somatrogon and lonapegsomatropin, as well as daily GH. All treatments were generally well tolerated, with the exception of observed injection site pain for somatrogon.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7482,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12325-024-02966-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-024-02966-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Since direct comparisons of long-acting growth hormones (LAGHs) are lacking, analyses were performed to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of somapacitan versus somatrogon and lonapegsomatropin in children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).
Methods
A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies of once-weekly LAGHs for the treatment of pediatric GHD. Indirect comparisons (ICs) using a Bayesian hierarchical network meta-analysis and a random effects model were performed using daily growth hormone (GH) 0.034 mg/kg/day (base case) or 0.024–0.034 mg/kg/day (alternative analyses) as the common comparator to compare height outcomes to 52 weeks [annualized height velocity, height velocity standard deviation score (SDS), and height SDS]. Identified evidence did not allow IC of safety or longer-term efficacy outcomes so these were qualitatively described.
Results
The SLR identified two somapacitan trials, three somatrogon trials (one included in alternative analyses only), and one lonapegsomatropin trial comparing the LAGH with daily GH in treatment-naïve pre-pubertal children for IC. ICs revealed no differences at 52 weeks between somapacitan versus somatrogon and lonapegsomatropin, as well as daily GH, with respect to all growth outcomes considered in children with GHD. All three LAGHs had sustained efficacy and were generally well tolerated, with comparable efficacy and safety to daily GH, with the exception of observed injection site pain for somatrogon.
Conclusion
No efficacy and safety differences were identified in comparisons of once weekly somapacitan versus somatrogon and lonapegsomatropin, as well as daily GH. All treatments were generally well tolerated, with the exception of observed injection site pain for somatrogon.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Therapy is an international, peer reviewed, rapid-publication (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance) journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of therapeutics and interventions (including devices) across all therapeutic areas. Studies relating to diagnostics and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Advances in Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.