锚定间接治疗比较发现佩西卡普兰和伊普他科潘治疗阵发性夜间血红蛋白尿的效果相当。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Regis Peffault de Latour, Austin Kulasekararaj, David Dingli, Koo Wilson, Piotr Wojciechowski, Zalmai Hakimi, Jameel Nazir, Barbara Czech, Peter Hillmen, Jeff Szer
{"title":"锚定间接治疗比较发现佩西卡普兰和伊普他科潘治疗阵发性夜间血红蛋白尿的效果相当。","authors":"Regis Peffault de Latour, Austin Kulasekararaj, David Dingli, Koo Wilson, Piotr Wojciechowski, Zalmai Hakimi, Jameel Nazir, Barbara Czech, Peter Hillmen, Jeff Szer","doi":"10.1111/ejh.14422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) is an ultra-rare, acquired non-malignant haematological disorder characterised by thrombosis risk, serious complications and debilitating symptoms in untreated patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) evaluated efficacy data between proximal complement 3 inhibitor (C3i) pegcetacoplan and factor B inhibitor, iptacopan, in patients with PNH previously treated with complement 5 inhibitors (C5i; eculizumab, ravulizumab).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Respective pivotal studies provided patient-level trial data for pegcetacoplan (16-week PEGASUS [NCT03500549]) and published data for iptacopan (24-week APPLY PNH [NCT04558918]). Differences in study design, duration and statistical methods between PEGASUS and APPLY PNH necessitated the comparative analyses to be conducted on secondary measures based on haemoglobin (Hb) levels, absolute reticulocyte count (ARC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, and patient-reported outcomes on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale scores. The availability of a common reference C5i treatment group in both PEGASUS and APPLY PNH studies allowed anchored ITC (Bucher method). Simulated treatment comparison (STC) assessed the robustness of the main analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, baseline characteristics of the populations in the PEGASUS and APPLY PNH studies were broadly comparable. Anchored ITC showed comparable outcomes (mean difference, [95% CI]) on change-from-baseline to end of study for pegcetacoplan versus C5i, and iptacopan versus C5i, respectively, across endpoints: Hb level (-0.49 g/dL [-1.78, 0.80]); ARC (-34.41 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L [-90.02, 21.21]); LDH level (-115.16 U/L [-244.40, 14.01]); FACIT-Fatigue score (3.57 [-5.60, 12.73]). Finally, the STC produced results consistent with the main Bucher analyses across all clinical endpoints and patient-reported fatigue, providing similar point estimates and confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This anchored ITC, based on data from pivotal trials, did not indicate significant differences in clinical or patient-reported outcomes between pegcetacoplan and iptacopan in PNH treatment. The findings suggest that PNH treatment decisions should also consider individualised disease- and patient-related factors.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03500549.</p>","PeriodicalId":11955,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Haematology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anchored Indirect Treatment Comparison Finds Comparable Effects of Pegcetacoplan and Iptacopan in Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria.\",\"authors\":\"Regis Peffault de Latour, Austin Kulasekararaj, David Dingli, Koo Wilson, Piotr Wojciechowski, Zalmai Hakimi, Jameel Nazir, Barbara Czech, Peter Hillmen, Jeff Szer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ejh.14422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) is an ultra-rare, acquired non-malignant haematological disorder characterised by thrombosis risk, serious complications and debilitating symptoms in untreated patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) evaluated efficacy data between proximal complement 3 inhibitor (C3i) pegcetacoplan and factor B inhibitor, iptacopan, in patients with PNH previously treated with complement 5 inhibitors (C5i; eculizumab, ravulizumab).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Respective pivotal studies provided patient-level trial data for pegcetacoplan (16-week PEGASUS [NCT03500549]) and published data for iptacopan (24-week APPLY PNH [NCT04558918]). Differences in study design, duration and statistical methods between PEGASUS and APPLY PNH necessitated the comparative analyses to be conducted on secondary measures based on haemoglobin (Hb) levels, absolute reticulocyte count (ARC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, and patient-reported outcomes on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale scores. The availability of a common reference C5i treatment group in both PEGASUS and APPLY PNH studies allowed anchored ITC (Bucher method). Simulated treatment comparison (STC) assessed the robustness of the main analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, baseline characteristics of the populations in the PEGASUS and APPLY PNH studies were broadly comparable. Anchored ITC showed comparable outcomes (mean difference, [95% CI]) on change-from-baseline to end of study for pegcetacoplan versus C5i, and iptacopan versus C5i, respectively, across endpoints: Hb level (-0.49 g/dL [-1.78, 0.80]); ARC (-34.41 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L [-90.02, 21.21]); LDH level (-115.16 U/L [-244.40, 14.01]); FACIT-Fatigue score (3.57 [-5.60, 12.73]). Finally, the STC produced results consistent with the main Bucher analyses across all clinical endpoints and patient-reported fatigue, providing similar point estimates and confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This anchored ITC, based on data from pivotal trials, did not indicate significant differences in clinical or patient-reported outcomes between pegcetacoplan and iptacopan in PNH treatment. The findings suggest that PNH treatment decisions should also consider individualised disease- and patient-related factors.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03500549.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Haematology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Haematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.14422\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Haematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.14422","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:阵发性夜间血红蛋白尿(PNH)是一种罕见的获得性非恶性血液学疾病,其特征是未经治疗的患者有血栓形成风险、严重并发症和衰弱症状。目的:本锚定间接治疗比较(ITC)评估近端补体3抑制剂(C3i) pegcetacoplan和因子B抑制剂iptacopan对先前接受补体5抑制剂(C5i;eculizumab ravulizumab)。方法:各自的关键研究提供了pegcetacoplan(16周PEGASUS [NCT03500549])和iptacopan(24周APPLY PNH [NCT04558918])的患者水平试验数据。PEGASUS和APPLY PNH在研究设计、持续时间和统计方法上的差异,需要对基于血红蛋白(Hb)水平、绝对网织红细胞计数(ARC)、乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)水平和慢性疾病治疗-疲劳功能评估(facit -疲劳)量表评分的患者报告结果的次要测量进行比较分析。在PEGASUS和APPLY PNH研究中,通用参考C5i治疗组允许锚定ITC (Bucher方法)。模拟治疗比较(STC)评估了主要分析的稳健性。结果:总的来说,PEGASUS和APPLY PNH研究中人群的基线特征具有广泛的可比性。锚定ITC在从基线到研究结束的变化中分别显示pegcetacoplan与C5i和iptacopan与C5i的可比结果(平均差异,[95% CI]),跨终点:Hb水平(-0.49 g/dL [-1.78, 0.80]);弧(-34.41 × 109/ l [-90.02, 21.21]);LDH水平(-115.16 U/L [-244.40, 14.01]);FACIT-Fatigue评分(3.57[-5.60,12.73])。最后,STC在所有临床终点和患者报告的疲劳中得出了与主要Bucher分析一致的结果,提供了相似的点估计和置信区间。结论:该锚定的ITC,基于关键试验的数据,在PNH治疗中,pegcetacoplan和iptacopan的临床或患者报告的结果没有显着差异。研究结果表明,PNH治疗决策还应考虑个体化疾病和患者相关因素。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03500549。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anchored Indirect Treatment Comparison Finds Comparable Effects of Pegcetacoplan and Iptacopan in Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria.

Background: Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) is an ultra-rare, acquired non-malignant haematological disorder characterised by thrombosis risk, serious complications and debilitating symptoms in untreated patients.

Objective: This anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) evaluated efficacy data between proximal complement 3 inhibitor (C3i) pegcetacoplan and factor B inhibitor, iptacopan, in patients with PNH previously treated with complement 5 inhibitors (C5i; eculizumab, ravulizumab).

Methods: Respective pivotal studies provided patient-level trial data for pegcetacoplan (16-week PEGASUS [NCT03500549]) and published data for iptacopan (24-week APPLY PNH [NCT04558918]). Differences in study design, duration and statistical methods between PEGASUS and APPLY PNH necessitated the comparative analyses to be conducted on secondary measures based on haemoglobin (Hb) levels, absolute reticulocyte count (ARC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, and patient-reported outcomes on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale scores. The availability of a common reference C5i treatment group in both PEGASUS and APPLY PNH studies allowed anchored ITC (Bucher method). Simulated treatment comparison (STC) assessed the robustness of the main analysis.

Results: Overall, baseline characteristics of the populations in the PEGASUS and APPLY PNH studies were broadly comparable. Anchored ITC showed comparable outcomes (mean difference, [95% CI]) on change-from-baseline to end of study for pegcetacoplan versus C5i, and iptacopan versus C5i, respectively, across endpoints: Hb level (-0.49 g/dL [-1.78, 0.80]); ARC (-34.41 × 109/L [-90.02, 21.21]); LDH level (-115.16 U/L [-244.40, 14.01]); FACIT-Fatigue score (3.57 [-5.60, 12.73]). Finally, the STC produced results consistent with the main Bucher analyses across all clinical endpoints and patient-reported fatigue, providing similar point estimates and confidence intervals.

Conclusion: This anchored ITC, based on data from pivotal trials, did not indicate significant differences in clinical or patient-reported outcomes between pegcetacoplan and iptacopan in PNH treatment. The findings suggest that PNH treatment decisions should also consider individualised disease- and patient-related factors.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03500549.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Haematology is an international journal for communication of basic and clinical research in haematology. The journal welcomes manuscripts on molecular, cellular and clinical research on diseases of the blood, vascular and lymphatic tissue, and on basic molecular and cellular research related to normal development and function of the blood, vascular and lymphatic tissue. The journal also welcomes reviews on clinical haematology and basic research, case reports, and clinical pictures.
×
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