{"title":"中重度特应性皮炎患者服用1%地拉米司特和地戈西替尼0.5%的疗效和安全性的匹配调整间接比较研究","authors":"Takeshi Nakahara, Hiroyuki Murota, Miyuki Matsukawa, Hiroe Takeda, Yilong Zhang, Tomohiro Kondo","doi":"10.1007/s13555-024-01282-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic condition with an increasing incidence in Japan. Difamilast and delgocitinib are both new topical drugs for AD proven to be efficacious and safe in phases 2 and 3 clinical trials in Japan. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing their efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients by severity and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib among patients with moderate-to-severe AD using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Phase 3 clinical trials of difamilast and delgocitinib for treating AD were included. The trials had similar designs but differed in baseline population characteristics. Anchored MAIC was used to align the baseline characteristics and calculate clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was to determine severity stages of the proportion of patients with AD through Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), while the secondary outcome included comparing other clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 340 patients were selected (170 each received difamilast and placebo) from the difamilast trial, with 158 (106 received delgocitinib; 52 received placebo) from the delgocitinib trial for the analysis. After matching patients from the difamilast trial with those from the delgocitinib trial, the effective sample sizes (ESS) reduced to 32.7-43.3% of the original difamilast (treatment/placebo) patients. At week 4, the ESS in the difamilast group demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the distribution of AD severity stages, as per EASI scores, compared with the delgocitinib group. In addition, no significant differences were found in modified EASI (mEASI) scores, mEASI 50 and 75 scores, and safety outcomes between the two treatments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The anchored MAIC analysis indicates that difamilast treatment, like delgocitinib, is a useful option for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe AD in Japan.</p>","PeriodicalId":11186,"journal":{"name":"Dermatology and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"2905-2916"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11480269/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Difamilast 1% and Delgocitinib 0.5% in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.\",\"authors\":\"Takeshi Nakahara, Hiroyuki Murota, Miyuki Matsukawa, Hiroe Takeda, Yilong Zhang, Tomohiro Kondo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13555-024-01282-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic condition with an increasing incidence in Japan. Difamilast and delgocitinib are both new topical drugs for AD proven to be efficacious and safe in phases 2 and 3 clinical trials in Japan. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing their efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients by severity and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib among patients with moderate-to-severe AD using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Phase 3 clinical trials of difamilast and delgocitinib for treating AD were included. The trials had similar designs but differed in baseline population characteristics. Anchored MAIC was used to align the baseline characteristics and calculate clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was to determine severity stages of the proportion of patients with AD through Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), while the secondary outcome included comparing other clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 340 patients were selected (170 each received difamilast and placebo) from the difamilast trial, with 158 (106 received delgocitinib; 52 received placebo) from the delgocitinib trial for the analysis. After matching patients from the difamilast trial with those from the delgocitinib trial, the effective sample sizes (ESS) reduced to 32.7-43.3% of the original difamilast (treatment/placebo) patients. At week 4, the ESS in the difamilast group demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the distribution of AD severity stages, as per EASI scores, compared with the delgocitinib group. In addition, no significant differences were found in modified EASI (mEASI) scores, mEASI 50 and 75 scores, and safety outcomes between the two treatments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The anchored MAIC analysis indicates that difamilast treatment, like delgocitinib, is a useful option for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe AD in Japan.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dermatology and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2905-2916\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11480269/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dermatology and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-024-01282-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-024-01282-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Difamilast 1% and Delgocitinib 0.5% in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.
Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic condition with an increasing incidence in Japan. Difamilast and delgocitinib are both new topical drugs for AD proven to be efficacious and safe in phases 2 and 3 clinical trials in Japan. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing their efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients by severity and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib among patients with moderate-to-severe AD using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).
Methods: Phase 3 clinical trials of difamilast and delgocitinib for treating AD were included. The trials had similar designs but differed in baseline population characteristics. Anchored MAIC was used to align the baseline characteristics and calculate clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was to determine severity stages of the proportion of patients with AD through Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), while the secondary outcome included comparing other clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib.
Results: A total of 340 patients were selected (170 each received difamilast and placebo) from the difamilast trial, with 158 (106 received delgocitinib; 52 received placebo) from the delgocitinib trial for the analysis. After matching patients from the difamilast trial with those from the delgocitinib trial, the effective sample sizes (ESS) reduced to 32.7-43.3% of the original difamilast (treatment/placebo) patients. At week 4, the ESS in the difamilast group demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the distribution of AD severity stages, as per EASI scores, compared with the delgocitinib group. In addition, no significant differences were found in modified EASI (mEASI) scores, mEASI 50 and 75 scores, and safety outcomes between the two treatments.
Conclusions: The anchored MAIC analysis indicates that difamilast treatment, like delgocitinib, is a useful option for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe AD in Japan.
期刊介绍：
Dermatology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance). The journal is dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of dermatological therapies. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health and epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to all clinical aspects of dermatology, such as skin pharmacology; skin development and aging; prevention, diagnosis, and management of skin disorders and melanomas; research into dermal structures and pathology; and all areas of aesthetic dermatology, including skin maintenance, dermatological surgery, and lasers.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/case series, trial protocols, and short communications. Dermatology and 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 quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. The journal appeals to a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
