Bimekizumab: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) to Establish 1-Year Comparative Efficacy in Moderate-to-Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS)
Author(s)
Naik HB1, Tzellos T2, Piguet V3, Davis L4, Mørup M5, Taieb V6, Kiri S7, Munro I8, Shodimu V8, Kirby B9
1Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA, 22. European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, e.V., Dessau, Germany; Department of Dermatology, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway, 3Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 4UCB Pharma, Morrisville, NC, USA, 5UCB Pharma, Copenhagen S, 84, Denmark, 6UCB Pharma, Colombes, France, 7UCB Pharma, Slough, SLG, UK, 8Source Health Economics, London, UK, 9St Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park and the Charles Institute, University College, Dublin, Ireland
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody, selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)‑17F in addition to IL‑17A. This MAIC assesses efficacy of bimekizumab 320mg every 2 then 4 weeks (Q2W/Q4W), in moderate-to-severe HS, compared with approved biologic therapies; secukinumab 300mg Q2W or Q4W, and adalimumab 40mg QW, at week (Wk) 48–52.
METHODS: Individual patient data for bimekizumab (BE HEARD I/II) were combined and weighted using a propensity score model, to match aggregated baseline characteristics of trials for secukinumab (SUNRISE/SUNSHINE), and adalimumab (PIONEER-OLE I/II). Outcomes of interest were improvement from baseline in HS Clinical Response outcomes, ≥50%/≥75%/≥90% reduction in abscess and inflammatory nodules (AN) (with no increase of abscesses/draining tunnels [DT]) (HiSCR50/75/90), percentage change from baseline (CFB) in AN and CFB/%CFB DT count. Outcome imputation methods (observed case or last observation carried forward) were aligned with comparator trials to reduce indirect comparison bias. Secukinumab non-responder imputation was considered in sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Bimekizumab and adalimumab data were reported at Wk48; secukinumab at Wk52. Patients receiving bimekizumab Q2W/Q4W had higher likelihood of achieving HiSCR50 compared with secukinumab Q2W (odds ratio [95% CI]: 2.77 [1.73, 4.45]), secukinumab Q4W (3.14 [1.94, 5.07]), and adalimumab (2.29 [1.30, 4.05]). Bimekizumab also had a higher likelihood of improving HiSCR75/90, %CFB AN, and CFB DT count compared with secukinumab Q2W and Q4W. Compared with adalimumab, bimekizumab had higher likelihood of achieving HiSCR75 (1.58 [0.92, 2.72]), HiSCR90 (1.36 [0.77, 2.42]), and improved %CFB AN (mean difference [95% CI]: – 26.98 [– 36.95, – 17.00]) and %CFB DT (– 24.95 [–49.63, –0.26]).
CONCLUSIONS: HS patients treated with bimekizumab at Wk48–52 had a higher likelihood of achieving HiSCR50 compared with those treated with adalimumab and secukinumab, and higher likelihood of achieving HiSCR75/90 compared with secukinumab. Bimekizumab showed greater improvements in AN count and DT count compared with secukinumab and adalimumab.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)
Code
CO72
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Meta-Analysis & Indirect Comparisons
Disease
Sensory System Disorders (Ear, Eye, Dental, Skin)