Mixed Treatment Comparison Research Articles

Revisiting the Efficacy and Safety of Bivalirudin in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Randomized trials of bivalirudin in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have yielded heterogeneous results. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of four antithrombin regimens-unfractionated heparin (UFH), bivalirudin (stopped soon after percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), extended bivalirudin (continued for a few hours after PCI), and combined UFH and a Gp2b3a inhibitors (GPI) in patients who present with STEMI. A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the above antithrombin in patients with STEMI. The primary outcome was net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE). The primary ischemic endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, and other endpoints included all-cause mortality and stent thrombosis. The primary analysis compared the effect of these antithrombin regimens in reference to UFH using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. In the 14 RCTs evaluating 25,415 patients with STEMI, when compared to UFH monotherapy, extended bivalirudin lowered NACE (OR = 0.71 with 95% CI: 0.53-0.96; moderate level of confidence) driven by a significant decrease in major bleeding (OR = 0.42 with 95% CI: 0.26-0.68; high level of confidence) without any significant difference in MACE or all-cause mortality. When compared with UFH monotherapy, UFH+GPI reduced risk of MACE (OR = 0.76 with 95% CI: 0.60-0.97; high level of confidence) but at the expense of an increase in major bleeding (OR = 1.48 with 95% CI: 1.11-1.98; high level of confidence) with no difference in NACE or all-cause mortality. For major bleeding, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, UFH monotherapy ranked #3, and combined UFH and GPI ranked #4. For NACE, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, combined UFH and GPI ranked #3, and UFH monotherapy ranked #4. Cluster plots for MACE and major bleeding demonstrated that extended bivalirudin had the best balance for efficacy and safety. In patients undergoing PCI for STEMI, extended bivalirudin offers the best balance for primary ischemic (MACE) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes.

Renal denervation - radiofrequency vs. ultrasound: insights from a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized sham controlled trials.

Multiple randomized trials have shown that renal denervation (RDN) reduces blood pressure (BP) when compared with sham control but the antihypertensive efficacy of radiofrequency vs. ultrasound-based RDN is uncertain. We aimed to compare the outcomes of radiofrequency RDN (rRDN) and ultrasound RDN (uRDN), when compared with sham in patients with hypertension. PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized sham-controlled trials (RCTs) of rRDN or uRDN or for trials of rRDN vs. uRDN. Primary efficacy outcome was 24-h ambulatory SBP. A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed comparing the efficacy and safety against sham and against each other. Among 13 RCTs that enrolled 2285 hypertensive patients, rRDN reduced 24-h ambulatory SBP [(MD = 2.34 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.72-3.95], office SBP (MD = 5.04 mmHg; 95% CI: 2.68-7.40)], and office DBP (MD = 2.95 mmHg; 95% CI: 1.68-4.22) when compared with sham. Similarly, uRDN reduced 24-h ambulatory SBP (MD = 4.74 mmHg; 95% CI: 2.80-6.67), day-time ambulatory SBP (MD = 5.40 mmHg; 95% CI: 3.68-7.13), night-time ambulatory SBP (MD = 3.84 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.02-7.67), and office SBP (3.98 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.78-7.19) when compared with sham. There was significantly greater reduction in 24-h ambulatory SBP (MD = 2.40 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.09-4.71), day-time ambulatory SBP (MD = 4.09 mmHg; 95% CI: 1.61-6.56), and night-time ambulatory SBP (MD = 5.76 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.48-11.0) with uRDN when compared with rRDN. For primary efficacy outcome, uRDN ranked #1, followed by rRDN (#2), and sham (#3). In hypertensive patients, rRDN and uRDN significantly reduced 24-h ambulatory and office SBP when compared with sham control with significantly greater reduction in ambulatory BP with uRDN than with rRDN at 4 months (mean) of follow-up. A large-scale randomized head-to-head trial of rRDN or uRDN is warranted to evaluate if there are differences in efficacy.

Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder

ObjectiveIt is frequent to find overlapping network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic with differences in terms of both treatments included and effect estimates. We aimed to evaluate the impact...

Analysis of Nonconcurrent Controls in Adaptive Platform Trials: Separating Randomized and Nonrandomized Information.

Adaptive platform trials allow treatments to be added or dropped during the study, meaning that the control arm may be active for longer than the experimental arms. This leads to nonconcurrent controls, which provide nonrandomized information that may increase efficiency but may introduce bias from temporal confounding and other factors. Various methods have been proposed to control confounding from nonconcurrent controls, based on adjusting for time period. We demonstrate that time adjustment is insufficient to prevent bias in some circumstances where nonconcurrent controls are present in adaptive platform trials, and we propose a more general analytical framework that accounts for nonconcurrent controls in such circumstances. We begin by defining nonconcurrent controls using the concept of a concurrently randomized cohort, which is a subgroup of participants all subject to the same randomized design. We then use cohort adjustment rather than time adjustment. Due to flexibilities in platform trials, more than one randomized design may be in force at any time, meaning that cohort-adjusted and time-adjusted analyses may be quite different. Using simulation studies, we demonstrate that time-adjusted analyses may be biased while cohort-adjusted analyses remove this bias. We also demonstrate that the cohort-adjusted analysis may be interpreted as a synthesis of randomized and indirect comparisons analogous to mixed treatment comparisons in network meta-analysis. This allows the use of network meta-analysis methodology to separate the randomized and nonrandomized components and to assess their consistency. Whenever nonconcurrent controls are used in platform trials, the separate randomized and indirect contributions to the treatment effect should bepresented.

Procedural Outcomes With Femoral, Radial, Distal Radial, and Ulnar Access for Coronary Angiography: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Radial artery access for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces the risk of death, bleeding, and vascular complications and is preferred over femoral artery access, leading to a class 1 indication by clinical practice guidelines. However, alternate upper extremity access such as distal radial and ulnar access are not mentioned in the guidelines despite randomized trials. We aimed to evaluate procedural outcomes with femoral, radial, distal radial, and ulnar access sites in patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI. PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared at least 2 of the 4 access sites in patients undergoing PCI or angiography. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and access site hematoma. Intention-to-treat mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed. From 47 randomized clinical trials that randomized 38 924 patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI, when compared with femoral access, there was a lower risk of major bleeding with radial access (odds ratio [OR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.35-0.59]) and lower risk of access site hematoma with radial (OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.24-0.48]), distal radial (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.20-0.56]), and ulnar (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.31-0.83]) access. However, when compared with radial access, there was higher risk of hematoma with ulnar access (OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]). Data from randomized trials support guideline recommendation of class 1 for the preference of radial access over femoral access in patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI. Moreover, distal radial and ulnar access can be considered as a default secondary access site before considering femoral access. URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: 42024512365.

Intrapleural Thrombolytics for Parapneumonic Effusion: A Network Metaanalysis.

Intrapleural thrombolytics have been trialed for facilitating pleural fluid drainage in patients with complicated parapneumonic effusion. The present study is a network metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have evaluated these thrombolytics. Electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar) were searched for appropriate RCTs evaluating the therapeutic effect of thrombolytics in patients with complicated parapneumonic effusion. Mortality, the proportion of patients referred for surgical intervention, and serious adverse events were the outcome measures. Random-effects model was used for generating direct and mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates. Grading of the evidence for key comparisons was carried out. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals was used to represent the pooled estimates. Seventy-six studies were retrieved with the search strategy, of which 16 were included. No significant differences were observed in mortality. Compared to normal saline, significantly less proportion of patients was referred for surgical intervention with streptokinase (0.4, 0.2 to 0.8), urokinase (0.4, 0.2 to 0.8), alteplase (0.3, 0.1 to 0.7), and alteplase + DNase (0.2, 0.1 to 0.7). DNase alone increased the risk of referral to surgical intervention (3.4, 1.5 to 7.6). Only streptokinase was observed with an increased risk of serious adverse events compared to normal saline (2.8, 1.1 to 7.1) and alteplase (6.7, 1.1 to 39.9). Moderate quality of evidence was observed for streptokinase with normal saline for the proportion of patients referred for surgical intervention, while either low or very low quality strength was observed for all other comparisons. Streptokinase, urokinase, alteplase, and alteplase + DNase were observed in patients referred for surgical interventions when used intrapleural in patients with parapneumonic effusion. Alteplase + DNase is likely to outperform others as it was observed with the least risk of patients referred for surgical interventions. Until additional data emerges that changes the pooled estimates, thrombolytics other than streptokinase are preferred due to the increased risk of serious adverse events.

Culprit-Only Revascularization, Single-Setting Complete Revascularization, and Staged Complete Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Complete revascularization improves cardiovascular outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction ([MI]; ST-segment-elevation MI or non-ST-segment-elevation MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, the timing of complete revascularization (single-setting versus staged revascularization) is uncertain. The aim was to compare the outcomes of single-setting complete, staged complete, and culprit vessel-only revascularization in patients with acute MI and multivessel disease. PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared 3 revascularization strategies. From 16 randomized controlled trials that randomized 11 876 patients with acute MI and multivessel disease, both single-setting complete and staged complete revascularization reduced primary outcome (cardiovascular mortality/MI; odds ratio [OR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41-0.65]; OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62-0.88]), composite of all-cause mortality/MI (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.40-0.67]; OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]), major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]; OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.82]), MI (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.26-0.57]; OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.90]), and repeat revascularization (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.18-0.47]; OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.71]) compared with culprit-only revascularization. Single-setting complete revascularization reduced cardiovascular mortality/MI (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.91]), major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50-0.91]), and all-cause mortality/MI driven by a lower risk of MI (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.77]) compared with staged complete revascularization. Single-setting complete revascularization ranked number 1, followed by staged complete revascularization (number 2) and culprit-only revascularization (number 3) for all outcomes. The results were largely consistent in subgroup analysis comparing ST-segment-elevation MI versus non-ST-segment-elevation MI cohorts. Single-setting complete revascularization may offer the greatest reductions in cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI and multivessel disease. A large-scale randomized trial of single-setting complete versus staged complete revascularization is warranted to evaluate the optimal timing of complete revascularization.

#1714 The treatment of antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplantation with recent drugs: a network meta-analysis

Abstract Background and Aims The recent treatments for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) have been carried out in a small number of controlled clinical trials and are based on limited data. In recent research on AMR treatment, new drugs targeting B cells, plasma cells, the complement system, and IL-6 have been gaining attention. Method Studies on antibody mediated rejection (AMR) treatment were divided into four groups:, 1) rituximab, 2 bortezomib, 3 eculizumab, and 4) tocilizumab. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded databases from 1970 to February 2023.5. We performed direct and indirect network meta-analyses using Bayesian models and ranked different AMR treatment method using a generation mixed treatment comparison (GeMTC) and Stata version 13. The outcomes included patient survival, graft failure, and bacterial and viral infections Results This analysis included 21 clinical trials with a total of 1217 participants. We focused on graft failure events based on the use of four groups of medications when patients received induction therapy for AMR treatment. There was a lower tendency in graft failure rates in the bortezomib and tocilizumab groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% CrI: 0.058-1.4 and OR 0.42, 95% CrI 0.012-7.4), while the eculizumab group showed a higher graft failure rate (OR 2.3, 95% CrI 0.26-31.0) compared to the rituximab using group. However, these study results were not statistically significant. Conclusion When looking at the study results, although not statistically significant, it was observed that bortezomib and tocilizumab, compared to rituximab, showed a tendency to reduce the incidence of graft failure after AMR occurrence. Although this study did not demonstrate statistical significance, it is believed that future research with increased enrollment and additional studies may help identify effective drugs for AMR treatment.

Risk of Diabetic Ketoacidosis Associated with Sodium Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors: A Network Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.

Background: Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) represent an emerging class of drugs with diverse indications. Despite their therapeutic potential, concerns regarding safety, particularly diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), remain contentious, with uncertainty regarding differences among various SGLT2is. This study aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis and meta-regression to evaluate the risk of SGLT2i-induced DKA and associated factors. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases for randomized clinical trials assessing SGLT2is across indications, reporting incidences of DKA. Mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates (MTCPEs) were calculated, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) served as effect estimates. We analyzed differences across dose categories (low, medium, and high) and conducted a meta-regression analysis to identify risk factors. The strength of evidence for key comparisons was determined. Results: Our analysis included 73 articles encompassing 85,997 participants assessing the risk of DKA. SGLT2is were associated with a heightened risk of DKA compared to placebo/control interventions (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.46), a finding confirmed by bootstrap analysis. Among SGLT2is, dapagliflozin (OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.08), sotagliflozin (OR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.14, 3.25), canagliflozin (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.11, 12.45), and ertugliflozin (OR: 3.92; 95% CI: 1.04, 14.77) exhibited increased DKA risk. No significant differences were observed among specific SGLT2is. Sub-group analyses revealed a high risk of DKA with low (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.95) and high doses (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 3.3), type 1 diabetes (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 1.6, 8.1), type 2 diabetes (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.4), as well as a diabetes duration exceeding 10 years (OR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.1, 10.8). The evidence of certainty for most comparisons was moderate. Conclusions: SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have been found to elevate the risk of DKA. The key factors that significantly predict the likelihood of DKA include the presence of diabetes (whether T1D or T2D) and the duration of diabetes. Based on these findings, standard treatment guidelines should advise taking specific precautions against DKA in patients identified as high-risk.

Effect of Induction Therapy Dose on Survival in Abo-Incompatible Kidney Transplantation: A Network Meta-Analysis Using Recent Data

Rituximab is an essential induction immunosuppressant for ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation (KT) (ABOi-KT). However, studies on the optimal dose of rituximab are insufficient, and there are dosage differences between transplant centers and countries. Therefore, we conducted a study to determine the survival outcomes of patients receiving the most effective and safe dose of rituximab during ABOi-KT. Studies on rituximab dose were divided into four groups: ABO compatible, 1) placebo, 2) rituximab 200 mg, 3) rituximab 200-500 mg, and 4) rituximab 500 mg. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded databases from 1970 to February 2022.9 . The inclusion criteria were adult patients (>18 years old). Reviews, observational studies, and clinical trials that did not clearly define outcomes or that did not have graft failure as an outcome were excluded. We performed direct and indirect network meta-analyses using Bayesian models and ranked different rituximab doses using a generation mixed treatment comparison (GeMTC) and Stata version 13. The NMA approach was evaluated using the GRADE framework, which specifies four levels of certainty for a given result: high, moderate, low, and very low. The outcomes included patient survival, graft failure, and bacterial and viral infections. Twenty-five trials, including 5,378 subjects, were divided into the following four groups: 1) placebo, 2) rituximab 200 mg, 3) rituximab 200-500 mg, and 4) rituximab 500 mg. We focused on survival outcomes according to the dose of rituximab when patients received induction therapy for ABOi-KT. The mortality rate was significantly lower in the ABO-compatible and rituximab 200 mg groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.27, 95% CrI: 0.071-0.91 and OR 0.14, 95% CrI 0.036-0.47), compared with that in the placebo group. We found that low-dose rituximab in ABO-i KT was effective compared to the high-dose and placebo in maintaining the survival rate. However, large-scale and long-term data are necessary for further validation of our findings. Additionally, the use of smaller doses of rituximab will require further discussion.

Biomechanical Characteristics of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries Treated With and Without Augmentation: A Network Meta-analysis of Controlled Laboratory Studies

Background: Treatment of ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears with suture tape augmentation has gained interest given preliminary reports of favorable biomechanical characteristics. No study to date has quantitatively assessed the biomechanical effects of multiple augmentation techniques relative to the native UCL. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled laboratory studies to assess and comparatively rank biomechanical effects of UCL repair or reconstruction with or without augmentation. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: PubMed, OVID/Medline, and Cochrane databases were queried in January 2023. A frequentist network meta-analytic approach was used to perform mixed-treatment comparisons of UCL repair and reconstruction techniques with and without augmentation, with the native UCL as the reference condition. Pooled treatment estimates were quantified under the random-effects assumption. Competing treatments were ranked in the network meta-analysis by using point estimates and standard errors to calculate P scores (greater P score indicates superiority of treatment for given outcome). Results: Ten studies involving 206 elbow specimens in which a distal UCL tear was simulated were included. UCL reconstruction with suture tape augmentation (AugRecon) restored load to failure to a statistically noninferior magnitude (mean difference [MD], –1.99 N·m; 95% CI, –10.2 to 6.2 N·m; P = .63) compared with the native UCL. UCL reconstruction (Recon) (MD, –12.7 N·m; P < .001) and UCL repair with suture tape augmentation (AugRepair) (MD, –14.8 N·m; P < .001) were both statistically inferior to the native UCL. The AugRecon condition conferred greater load to failure compared with Recon (P < .001) and AugRepair (P = .002) conditions. AugRecon conferred greater torsional stiffness relative to all other conditions and was not statistically different from the native UCL (MD, 0.32 N·m/deg; 95% CI, –0.30 to 0.95 N·m/deg; P = .31). Medial ulnohumeral gapping was not statistically different for the AugRepair (MD, 0.30 mm; 95% CI, –1.22 to 1.82 mm; P = .70), AugRecon (MD, 0.57 mm; 95% CI, –0.70 to 1.84 mm; P = .38), or Recon (MD, 1.02 mm; 95% CI, –0.02 to 2.05 mm; P = .055) conditions compared with the native UCL. P-score analysis indicated that AugRecon was the most effective treatment for increasing ultimate load to failure and torsional stiffness, whereas AugRepair was the most effective for minimizing medial gapping. Conclusion: AugRecon restored load to failure and torsional stiffness most similar to the parameters of the native UCL, whereas Recon and AugRepair did not restore the same advantageous properties at time zero. Medial ulnohumeral gapping during a valgus load was minimized by all 3 treatments. Based on network interactions, AugRecon was the superior treatment approach for restoring important biomechanical features of the UCL at time zero that are jeopardized during a complete distal tear.

Comparative survival in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) by prognostic subgroups: A living network meta-analysis.

171 Background: Treatment effects vary by volume of disease and timing of metastatic presentation in patients with mCSPC. Therefore, we updated the existing body of evidence to assess the comparative efficacy of systemic therapy in mCSPC by prognostic subgroups to inform clinical practice guidelines. Methods: This living systematic review was conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Phase III clinical trials assessing contemporary systemic therapy in mCSPC and reporting overall survival (OS) by four prognostic subgroups were included. Prognostic subgroups included synchronous high volume (SHV), synchronous low volume (SLV), metachronous high volume (MHV), and metachronous low volume (MLV) disease. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a network-meta-analytic approach in each subgroup. P-scores were used to assess relative treatment rankings in congruency with pairwise estimates. Higher scores indicated better efficacy. Results: This study included a total of nine trials with eight unique treatment options. In patients with SHV disease, darolutamide+docetaxel+ADT (DARO+D+ADT) significantly improved OS when compared to D+ADT (HR: 0.69; 0.57-0.85), enzalutamide (E)+ADT (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.99), and apalutamide (APA)+ADT (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.96). In patients with SLV disease, E+ADT (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.91) and AAP+ADT (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.49-0.89) significantly improved OS when compared to ADT. Although E+D+ADT trended toward improvement compared to other treatments, the results were not statistically significant. In patients withMHV disease, no statistically significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons. However, OS with DARO+D+ADT trended toward improvement when compared to D+ADT (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.39-1.23), APA+ADT (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.23-2.33), E+ADT (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.24-1.86), and E+D+ADT (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.26-1.34). In patients with MLV disease, E+ADT significantly improved OS compared to ADT (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.79), and D+ADT (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.85). APA+ADT significant improved OS compared to ADT (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.54), and D+ADT (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.55). No other statistically significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that triplet systemic therapy may be preferred in SHV, E systemic triplet and E hormonal doublet in SLV, DARO systemic triplet and APA hormonal doublet in MHV, and APA or E hormonal doublets in MLV mCSPC. [Table: see text]

Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) of first-line treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): A network meta-analysis.

412 Background: Previously we have reported comparative effectiveness data regarding survival of first line (1L) treatment options in mRCC. However, it is not known how the life-prolonging frontline combinations compare to patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from each database’s inception through July 1st 2023. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing 1L immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies for mRCC and reporting HrQoL were included. Small sample size adjusted standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for global, physical, functional, and emotional QoL. Positive SMD indicated an improvement. A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the comparative HrQoL across different treatment options. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: Of 5770 citations identified, five trials (nine references) were included in this analysis. Patient-reported outcomes have not been reported in the JAVELIN Renal 101 or COSMIC-313 trials yet. Global QoL was significantly improved with cabozantinib-nivolumab (CaboNivo) as compared to Nivo-ipilimumab (SMD 2.74, 95% CI 2.54; 2.93), lenvatinib-pembrolizumab (LenPem; 2.79, 2.53; 3.06), sunitinib (2.87, 2.72; 3.03), Pem-axitinib (PemAxi; 3.09, 2.89; 3.30) and atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AteBev; 3.24, 3.04; 3.45). Global QoL improvement was also observed with NivoIpi compared to sunitinib (0.14, 0.02; 0.25), PemAxi (0.36, 0.18; 0.54) and AteBev (0.51, 0.33; 0.68). Physical QoL improvement were consistent with CaboNivo. Likewise, LenPem significantly improved QoL compared to sunitinib (0.26, 0.04; 0.47), PemAxi (0.38, 0.13; 0.64) and NivoIpi (0.51, 0.27; 0.76). Significant functional QoL benefits were only observed with CaboNivo (0.32, 0.17; 0.48) and NivoIpi (0.19, 0.08; 0.31) compared to sunitinib. No significant mixed treatment comparisons were observed for emotional QoL, however, currently available data suggests that LenPem (rank 1) may potentially improve QoL (Table). Conclusions: CaboNivo and NivoIpi as 1L therapy may offer an improved overall HrQoL compared to other contemporary treatment options in mRCC. [Table: see text]

A systematic review and meta-analysis on utilizing anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy as a second-line treatment for relapsed and refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Inconsistent results observed in recent phase III trials assessing chimeric antigenic receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy as a second-line treatment compared to standard of care (SOC) in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) prompted a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of CAR-T cell therapy in this setting. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool effect estimates for comparison between CAR-T cell therapy and SOC. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a frequentist network meta-analysis approach. Meta-analysis of three trials with 865 patients showed significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS: HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.97; I2: 92%), progression-free survival (PFS: HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60; I2: 0%) with CAR-T cell therapy compared to SOC. Although there was a signal of potential overall survival (OS) improvement with CAR-T cell therapy, the difference was not statistically significant between the two groups (HR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.03; I2: 29%). Mixed treatment comparisons showed significant EFS benefit with liso-cel (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.61) and axi-cel (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.29-0.61) compared to tisa-cel. CAR-T cell therapy, as a second-line treatment, appears to be effective in achieving higher response rates and delaying the disease progression compared to SOC in R/R DLBCL.

Efficacy of Maintenance Therapies By Prognostic Subgroups in Post-Transplant Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction The optimal maintenance regimen by prognostic categories remains unclear in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative effectiveness of novel agents by different prognostic groups. Methods A comprehensive systematically structured literature search was conducted to identify phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating maintenance therapies in post-transplant NDMM patients and reporting data by subgroups including but not limited to international staging system (ISS), and cytogenetic risk. High cytogenetic risk (HCR) and standard cytogenetic risk (SCR) were defined in accordance with the eligible trials. Main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI were pooled using an inverse variance approach. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted. P-score (PS) were used to assess relative rankings of the treatments and were interpreted in congruency with pairwise estimates. Higher ranks indicated better efficacy. Results This NMA included six RCTs with 4119 participants and six unique treatment arms. In patients with SCR, the combination of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) improved PFS when compared to lenalidomide (Len; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.24-0.81), daratumumab (Dara; 0.27; 0.13-0.55), ixazomib (Ixa; 0.26; 0.13-0.53), and no maintenance therapy (0.17; 0.09-0.32). Similarly, KR improved PFS compared to lenalidomide (Len; 0.56; 0.33-0.96), daratumumab (Dara; 0.34; 0.18-0.65), ixazomib (Ixa; 0.33; 0.17-0.63), and no maintenance therapy (0.21; 0.12-0.38). There was no statistically significant difference between KRd and KR. KRd was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment (rank 1) followed by KR (rank 2), Len (rank 3), Dara (rank 4), and Ixa (rank 5) for improving PFS in SCR. In patients with HCR, KRd (0.35; 0.14-0.92), KR (0.32; 0.15-0.67), Dara (0.43; 0.25-0.73), and Len (0.48; 0.35-0.64) improved PFS when compared to no maintenance therapy. No other significant differences were observed in HCR patients. KR was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment followed by KRd (rank 2), Dara (rank 3), Len (rank 5), and Ixa (rank 5) for PFS in HCR patients. In patients with ISS-I/II, KRd and KR improved PFS when compared to Dara (KRd vs. Dara - 0.32; 0.16-0.65, KR vs Dara - 0.50; 0.26-0.94), and Ixa (KRd vs. Ixa - 0.22; 0.11-0.45, KR vs Ixa - 0.35; 0.18-0.65). KRd, not KR, improved PFS when compared to Len (0.41; 0.22-0.76). Rankings were consistent with those observed in SCR patients. No significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons for ISS-III patients. Limited number of trials reporting OS precluded formal assessment. Conclusions The current data suggest that KRd and KR may delay disease progression regardless of risk category. Overall survival data is still emerging and, if consistent, may influence clinical practice. We maintain a living meta-analysis to incorporate new evidence constantly.

Cost-Effectiveness of Secukinumab Versus Other Biologics in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: The Chinese Healthcare System Perspective.

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab compared with other biologics (adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, ixekizumab, guselkumab, and Yisaipu [etanercept biosimilar]) for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. A decision-tree (first year)/Markov model (subsequent years), with an annual cycle, was implemented over a lifetime horizon. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response rate at week16 was used for treatment response. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison conducted using data from randomized controlled trials. Other clinical inputs (adverse events, dropout, and mortality rates), utility weights, and costs were derived from published literature and local Chinese sources. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. For patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, secukinumab generated the highest QALYs (12.334) against all comparators at a lifetime cost of ¥231,477. Secukinumab dominated (higher QALYs at lower costs) all other biologics except ixekizumab in this population. Compared with secukinumab, ixekizumab incurred slightly lower costs (¥228,320) but gained lesser QALYs (12.284). Thus, secukinumab was a cost-effective treatment than ixekizumab at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥257,094 per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, base-case results were most sensitive to changes in the PASI response at 16weeks and year2+ dropout rates. Secukinumab is the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis compared with other commonly used biologics from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

#4809 EFFECT OF RITUXIMAB DOSE ON INDUCTION THERAPY IN ABO-INCOMPATIBLE KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION: A NETWORK META-ANALYSIS USING RECENT DATA

Abstract Background and Aims Rituximab is an essential inducible immunosuppressive agent for ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation (ABOi KT). However, studies on the dosage by country and transplant center are lacking. Therefore, we retrospectively investigated the effects of rituximab induction doses on patient mortality, transplant failure and adverse events. Method We included studies mentioning at least two of the eligible induction doses (200 mg, 200–500 mg, or 500 mg) of rituximab during ABOi KT and associated outcomes such as patient survival, graft failure, and bacterial and viral infections. We performed direct and indirect network meta-analyses using a Bayesian model and ranked different rituximab doses using generational mixed treatment comparisons. Publications from 1970 to February 2020 were searched and analyzed using the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded databases. GRADE of network meta-analysis approaches specified four levels of certainty for a given outcome: high, moderate, low, and very low. Results Among 5378 patients in 25 trials, glomerular filtration rate, graft loss, antibody-mediated rejection, T-cell-mediated rejection, fungal infection, bacterial infection, and CMV infection did not differ between ABOi groups treated with different doses of rituximab. The effect on mortality was significantly higher in the rituximab 200-500 mg and rituximab 500 mg groups (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, 95% CrI: 1.5-7.4 and OR 1.8.0, 95% CrI 1.2-11.2). The incidence of BK virus was significantly lower in the rituximab 200 mg group than in the other groups. Conclusion In ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation, low-dose rituximab is more effective than high-dose rituximab and reduces the risk of serious infection. Due to the small sample size, further randomized controlled trials may be needed to confirm these findings.

SA12 Use of Living Systematic Reviews (LSRS) Beyond COVID-19

A LSR is a systematic review that is continually updated, incorporating new evidence as it becomes available. They are conducted in research areas where new evidence is constantly emerging on diagnostic methods, treatments, and outcomes. The objective of this study was to understand the current application of LSRs across research areas. Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify LSRs. Only the most recent update of a LSR was included. Data regarding the indication, intervention, methods, frequency of updates, and funding were extracted. Of the 1,243 records identified, 126 LSRs were included for analysis. The first LSR was published in 2015, with a significant increase in the number of LSRs published starting in 2020, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common indication represented by LSRs was COVID-19 (72%), followed by oncology (10%). Other indications with LSRs included chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, and skin disorders, among others. While most oncology LSRs identified interventional randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (85%), only 54% of COVID-19 LSRs were restricted to interventional studies, including a combination of RCTS and real-world observational studies. Oncology LSRs included common cancers such as prostate, renal, or multiple myeloma. Of the reviews that reported update frequency, 28% planned monthly, 12% yearly, and 12% weekly updates. Only 46% of LSRs were registered. The majority of LSRs were funded by government or research organizations. Objectives of LSRs varied, with most stating the need to maintain up-to-date databases; however, several studies used LSRs to facilitate network meta-analysis or mixed treatment comparisons. While LSRs were introduced over five years ago, their frequency increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Apart from COVID-19, LSRs are commonly used in oncology settings. LSRs provide high-level, relevant, and up-to-date evidence, making them a useful tool for clinical and real-world research.

The role of volume of disease for treatment selection in patients with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC): A living meta-analysis.

5088 Background: Previous evidence suggests that there may be no additional benefit of triplet therapy in low volume disease based on limited data. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of triplet therapy as compared to docetaxel (D) and androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets by volume of disease using the most up to date results from the ARASENS trial. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment intensification with API, and/or D in patients with mCSPC were included. Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OS were pooled using an inverse-variance approach. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of triplet therapy compared to D doublet therapy. P-value of interaction was computed to assess difference between high (HV) and low volume (LV) disease subgroups (Pint &lt;0.1 - statistical significance). Additionally mixed treatment comparisons were computed using network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative effectiveness of triplet therapy compared to API doublets by volume of disease. Results: Pairwise meta-analysis included a total of 3 RCTs (ARASENS, PEACE-1, ENZAMET) with 2518 patients (HV: 1820; LV: 698) as shown. In patients with HV disease, 385 (43%) and 484 (53%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in HV (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.84). In patients with LV disease, 73 (20%) and 94 (28%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in LV (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52-0.97). There was no statistically significant interaction by volume of disease for triplet therapy vs. D doublet (Pint: 0.86). NMA including 10 clinical trials and over 11500 patients updated as of 13th Feb 2023 showed that in HV mCSPC, triplet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment option and may improve OS compared to API doublet therapy (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.66-1.03). In LV mCSPC, API doublet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment followed by triplet therapy. There was no significant difference between triplet therapy and API doublet therapy (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.74-1.12). Conclusions: These results underscore that triplet therapy may be preferred in mCSPC patients with HV disease whereas API doublet therapy may be preferred in LV disease. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination as a first-line (1L) therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with sarcomatoid histology: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

692 Background: Sarcomatoid mRCC exhibits poor prognosis and limited response to vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibition. Therefore, we assessed the efficacy of ICI combination therapy in this patient population using data from contemporary trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of ICI combinations with sunitinib monotherapy in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC. Patient important outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR). Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for survival outcomes and binary outcome data for response rates (expressed as relative risk [RR] were meta-analyzed using a DerSimonian-Lairds random-effects method. Mixed treatment comparisons among different ICI combinations were made using a network-meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were computed to assess the relative treatment rankings. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 618 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. ICI combination therapy was significantly associated with improved OS (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.43-0.72) and PFS (HR: 0.50; 0.40-0.62), increased ORR (RR: 2.42; 1.92-3.06), and CR (RR: 4.23; 2.00-8.93) when compared to sunitinib in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC (Table). The results were consistent with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Mixed treatment comparisons using current data revealed no statistically significant differences among different ICI combinations. However, the combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistently ranked higher (rank 2 for OS, ORR, and CR) and may potentially be more efficacious than other counterparts. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests improved survival, delayed disease progression and increased response rates with the use of ICI combination therapy in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC. [Table: see text]