Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of phase 3 clinical trial outcomes: OC-01 (varenicline solution) nasal spray and cyclosporine a 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion for the treatment of dry eye disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is a validated and widely accepted statistical method that derives indirect comparisons between treatments when head-to-head studies have not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of OC-01 varenicline nasal spray (OC-01 VNS) 0.03 mg to cyclosporine A (CsA) 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion on tear production in patients with dry eye disease based on data from the respective phase 3 clinical trials using the MAIC technique. METHODS: Individual patient data were drawn from the phase 3 registry trial of OC-01 VNS; aggregate data were drawn from 2 phase 3 trials of CsA in the publicly available New Drug Application for CsA 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion (RESTASIS). Using unanchored MAIC methods, the individual patient data were weighted based on 4 clinically relevant baseline variables (age, race, sex, and baseline Schirmer test score [STS]) to produce a weighted OC-01 VNS dataset matched to the key demographics of the CsA dataset. Least-squares mean change from baseline in STS for OC-01 VNS was calculated using the identical analysis of variance model used to calculate the same value for CsA in the RESTASIS New Drug Application, which were then compared. Proportions of subjects with improvement of 10 mm or more from baseline in STS were compared in the weighted OC-01 VNS and CsA dataset. Time points available for comparisons were CsA trials at 3 and 6 months and OC-01 data at 2 and 4 weeks. RESULTS: Data from 511 subjects in the OC-01 VNS phase 3 trial and 585 in the CsA phase 3 trials were analyzed. The least-squares mean STS change from baseline for OC-01 VNS at 2 and 4 weeks was significantly higher than that for CsA at 3 and 6 months (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Mean STS improvements were approximately 6-7 mm for OC-01 VNS and approximately 1 mm for CsA. The proportion of subjects with improvement of 10 mm or more from baseline in STS was significantly higher for OC-01 VNS (50.2%) than CsA (11.7 and 17.1% in the 2 CsA studies; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: This MAIC analysis demonstrates OC-01 VNS produces significantly greater improvement in mean STS and results in significantly greater numbers of patients with substantial improvement in STS (percentage ≥ 10 mm) compared with CsA. Together, absent more robust data from head-to-head trials, findings may suggest a potentially greater magnitude of improvement achieved with OC-01 VNS compared with CsA for the treatment of dry eye disease within conditions of the analysis methodology. DISCLOSURES: Dr Visco was a consultant for Novartis, Allergan, and Oyster Point, Inc. Ms Hendrix and Drs Macsai and Gibson are employees and shareholders for Oyster Point Pharma, Inc. Drs Sun and Tam participated in clinical research and received funding from Oyster Point Pharma, Inc. Oyster Point Pharma, Inc sponsored the Phase 3 OC-01 (varenicine solution) clinical study from which analysis data are obtained.