Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Philip J Mease, Richard B Warren, Peter Nash, Jean-Marie Grouin, Nikos Lyris, Damon Willems, Vanessa Taieb, Jason Eells, Iain B McInnes, Philip J Mease, Richard B Warren, Peter Nash, Jean-Marie Grouin, Nikos Lyris, Damon Willems, Vanessa Taieb, Jason Eells, Iain B McInnes

Abstract

Introduction: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Methods: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed.

Results: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks.

Conclusion: In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR.

Trial registration numbers: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

© 2024. The Author(s).

References

    1. Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Papp KA, et al. Prevalence of rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis in European/North American dermatology clinics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(5):729–35.
    1. Wang EA, Suzuki E, Maverakis E, Adamopoulos IE. Targeting IL-17 in psoriatic arthritis. Eur J Rheumatol. 2017;4(4):272–7.
    1. Mease PJ, McInnes IB, Kirkham B, et al. Secukinumab inhibition of interleukin-17A in patients with psoriatic arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(14):1329–39.
    1. Kavanaugh A, McInnes IB, Mease PJ, et al. Efficacy of subcutaneous secukinumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis stratified by prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use: results from the randomized placebo-controlled FUTURE 2 study. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(9):1713–7.
    1. Nash P, Mease PJ, McInnes IB, et al. Efficacy and safety of secukinumab administration by autoinjector in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (FUTURE 3). Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20(1):47.
    1. Kivitz AJ, Nash P, Tahir H, et al. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg with or without loading regimen in psoriatic arthritis: results from the FUTURE 4 study. Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(3):393–407.
    1. van der Heijde D, Mease PJ, Landewe RBM, et al. Secukinumab provides sustained low rates of radiographic progression in psoriatic arthritis: 52-week results from a phase 3 study, FUTURE 5. Rheumatology (Oxf). 2020;59(6):1325–34.
    1. Ritchlin CT, Coates LC, McInnes IB, et al. Bimekizumab treatment in biologic DMARD-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 52-week efficacy and safety results from the phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled, active reference BE OPTIMAL study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(11):1404–14.
    1. Merola JF, Landewe R, McInnes IB, et al. Bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE COMPLETE). Lancet. 2023;401(10370):38–48.
    1. Coates LC, Landewe R, McInnes I, Mease P, Ritchlin C, Tanaka Y. Sustained efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and prior inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the phase 3 BE COMPLETE study and its open-label extension up to 1 year EULAR. 2023.
    1. Reich K, Warren RB, Lebwohl M, et al. Bimekizumab versus secukinumab in plaque psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(2):142–52.
    1. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(5):607–17.
    1. Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(2):200–11.
    1. Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–7.
    1. Nash P, McInnes IB, Mease PJ, et al. Secukinumab versus adalimumab for psoriatic arthritis: comparative effectiveness up to 48 weeks using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2018;5(1):99–122.
    1. Strand V, McInnes I, Mease P, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison: secukinumab versus infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8(7):497–510.
    1. Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Merola JF, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Rheumatology. 2024. .
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
    1. Song J, Abé C, Banefelt J, et al. Real-world usage of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with psoriatic arthritis in Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(Suppl 1):1785–6.
    1. EMA. Secukinumab—Summary of product characteristics: EMA; 2023. . Accessed 15 Oct 2023
    1. Welby S, Song J, Lu C, et al. RWD174 real world treatment usage of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in US patients with psoriatic arthritis: persistence, factors associated with non-persistence, and dosing patterns. Value Health. 2023;26(6):S394–5.
    1. Orbai AM, Husni ME, Gladman DD, et al. Secukinumab efficacy on psoriatic arthritis GRAPPA-OMERACT core domains in patients with or without prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use: pooled analysis of four phase 3 studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8(3):1223–40.
    1. Tillett W, Eder L, Goel N, et al. Enhanced patient involvement and the need to revise the core set—report from the psoriatic arthritis working group at OMERACT 2014. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(11):2198–203.
    1. Coates LC, Soriano ER, Corp N, et al. Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA): updated treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis 2021. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18(8):465–79.
    1. Sanchez-Rodriguez G, Puig L. Pathogenic role of IL-17 and therapeutic targeting of IL-17F in psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthropathies. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(12):10305.
    1. Tanaka Y, Shaw S. Bimekizumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2024;20(2):155–68.
    1. DeTora LM, Toroser D, Sykes A, et al. Good publication practice (GPP) guidelines for company-sponsored biomedical research: 2022 update. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(9):1298–304.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel