Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Single-arm control trials are increasingly proposed as a potential approach for treatment evaluation. However, the limitations of this design restrict its methodological acceptability. Regulatory agencies have raised concerns about this approach, although it is sometimes required in applications based solely on such studies. Consequently, the need for accurate indirect treatment comparisons has become critical, especially when constructing external control arms using routinely collected data as outcome measurements may differ from those recorded in the single-arm trial leading to potential misclassification of outcomes. This study aimed to quantify the bias from ignoring misclassification of a binary outcome within unanchored indirect comparisons, through simulations, and to propose a likelihood-based method to correct this bias (i.e., the outcome-corrected model). Simulations demonstrated that ignoring misclassification results in significant bias and poor coverage probabilities. In contrast, the outcome-corrected model reduced bias, improved 95% confidence interval coverage probability and root mean square error in various scenarios. The methodology was applied to two hepatocellular carcinoma trials illustrating a practical application. The findings underscore the importance of addressing outcome misclassification in indirect comparisons. The proposed correction method may improve reliability in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.70236DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

unanchored indirect
12
indirect comparisons
12
misclassification binary
8
external control
8
comparisons simulations
8
indirect treatment
8
treatment comparisons
8
ignoring misclassification
8
outcome-corrected model
8
indirect
5

Similar Publications

Single-arm control trials are increasingly proposed as a potential approach for treatment evaluation. However, the limitations of this design restrict its methodological acceptability. Regulatory agencies have raised concerns about this approach, although it is sometimes required in applications based solely on such studies.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: No head-to-head studies comparing the efficacy of avalglucosidase alfa (AVA) with cipaglucosidase alfa + miglustat (Cipa+mig) have been conducted in patients with late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD). Two indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) were conducted to estimate the effects of AVA versus Cipa+mig.

Methods: ITCs were conducted using simulated treatment comparisons (STCs), adjusting for differences in prognostic factors and treatment effect modifiers.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib have demonstrated efficacy in separate single-arm clinical trials in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Given these single-arm trials lacked a common comparator, an unanchored indirect treatment comparison was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy of zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib using a simulated treatment comparison (STC) method. In the base case analysis (adjusted for all covariates), zanubrutinib treatment was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Ribociclib + nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) and abemaciclib + endocrine therapy (ET) are approved for high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer based on data from the NATALEE and monarchE trials, respectively. No trials have directly compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant ribociclib and abemaciclib. This study compared relative efficacy and safety of adjuvant ribociclib + NSAI versus abemaciclib + ET using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Plaque psoriasis of the scalp, a common psoriasis location, remains difficult to manage. The comparative efficacy of newer oral agents, such as deucravacitinib, versus traditional first-generation biologics has not been characterized in the treatment of scalp psoriasis. This study indirectly compared the long-term efficacy of deucravacitinib versus that of adalimumab for the treatment of scalp psoriasis.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF