Comparative effectiveness of secukinumab and etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis assessed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Abstract

Objective: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can be used to assess the comparativeeffectiveness of two treatments indirectly using data from randomized placebo-controlled trials.This MAIC assessed the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab (an anti-interleukin-17A) andetanercept (a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor) in a target population of biologic-naïve patients withpsoriatic arthritis (PsA).Methods: Individual patient data pooled from FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634), FUTURE 3 (NCT01989468),and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350) (secukinumab: 150 mg, n=458 and 300 mg, n=461) were matchedto data from the population in the NCT00317499 trial (etanercept 25 mg, n=101) using MAICmethodology, by adjusting for clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Recalculatedoutcomes from FUTURE 2, 3, and 5 (150 mg, effective sample size (ESS) post-matching=104;300 mg, ESS=75; and placebo, ESS=159) were compared with the NCT00317499 trial. Pairwisecomparisons using odds ratios (ORs) were performed for the American College of Rheumatology(ACR) 20, 50, and 70 response criteria at week 12 (placebo-adjusted) and week 24 (non-placebo-adjusted).Results: At week 12, there were no significant differences in ACR responses between secukinumaband etanercept. There was no significant difference between secukinumab 150 mg and etanerceptat week 24 with respect to ACR 20 and 50 response rates; however, ACR 70 response rates werehigher for secukinumab 150 mg (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 4.48 (2.01–9.99), p