Efficacy and Safety of Somapacitan Relative to Somatrogon and Lonapegsomatropin in Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
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,&nbsp;Vasileios Antavalis,&nbsp;Jan Odgaard-Jensen,&nbsp;Annachiara Rossi,&nbsp;Alberto Pietropoli,&nbsp;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.

Abstract Image

索马帕西坦与索马特罗贡和长效生长激素相比对小儿生长激素缺乏症的疗效和安全性:系统文献综述和网络元分析
导言由于缺乏对长效生长激素(LAGHs)的直接比较,因此我们进行了分析,以间接比较索马普坦与索马曲贡(somatrogon)和长效生长激素(lonapegsomatropin)对生长激素缺乏症(GHD)患儿的疗效和安全性。采用贝叶斯分层网络荟萃分析和随机效应模型进行了间接比较(IC),将每日生长激素(GH)0.034 mg/kg/天(基本情况)或0.024-0.034 mg/kg/天(替代分析)作为共同比较对象,比较52周的身高结果[年化身高速度、身高速度标准偏差评分(SDS)和身高标准偏差]。结果SLR确定了两项索马帕西坦试验、三项索马特罗贡试验(其中一项仅纳入替代分析)和一项长效索马托品试验,这些试验对青春期前未接受治疗的儿童进行了LAGH与每日GH的IC比较。IC试验显示,52周时,在GHD儿童的所有生长结果方面,索马帕西坦与索马曲贡、长佩格索马托品以及每日GH均无差异。除了观察到索马曲贡注射部位疼痛外,所有三种LAGHs都有持续疗效,耐受性普遍良好,疗效和安全性与每日GH相当。除观察到索马曲贡注射部位疼痛外,所有治疗方法的耐受性普遍良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Therapy
Advances in Therapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
353
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信