EVALUATING ANALGESIC EFFICACY USING BUCHER AND ANCHORED MATCHING-ADJUSTED INDIRECT COMPARISON: A COMPARISON OF ANRIKEFON AND TEGILERIDINE
Author(s)
Mengtian Cai, MSc1, Shuhua Tan, MSc1, Wei Li, PhD Candidate2, Sheng Han, PhD1.
1International Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China, 2International Research Center for Medicinal Administration Peking University；School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
1International Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China, 2International Research Center for Medicinal Administration Peking University；School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the analgesic efficacy of two innovative Chinese analgesics, Anrikefon (HSK21542) and Tegileridine (SHR8554), for postoperative abdominal pain to support clinical decision-making.
METHODS: This study employed two indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods, the Bucher adjusted indirect comparison and the anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to evaluate treatment efficacy. The key outcome was the 0-24 h time-weighted summed pain intensity difference (SPID_0-24h), the primary endpoint in both trials. Efficacy data for Anrikefon were derived from two RCTs in China (HSK21542-301 and HSK21542-303; 1 μg/kg every 8 hours), whereas Tegileridine data were derived from aggregate results in its product label (SHR8554-301; 0.75 mg loading, PCA bolus 0.05 mg), both using placebo as the comparator. A Bucher comparison using aggregate data from all trials estimated the mean difference (MD). An anchored MAIC was then conducted using IPD from HSK21542-303, reweighted to match the Tegileridine baseline characteristics (age, sex, baseline Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score).
RESULTS: The Bucher showed a SPID_0-24h MD of -3.33 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): -11.74, 2.74). The MAIC estimated an MD of -10.1 (95% CI: -22.0, 1.8), favoring Anrikefon without statistical significance. After reweighting, the effective sample size was 164, representing 64% of the pre-matching sample. Both methods indicated similar direction of effect; Bucher showed substantial heterogeneity (I²≈99%), whereas MAIC provided more stable estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: Anrikefon and Tegileridine demonstrated similar analgesic efficacy, with Anrikefon showing a numerically favorable effect. By matching baseline characteristics, the MAIC offered more stable and less heterogeneous estimates. Therefore, in the absence of head-to-head trials, MAIC may serve as an complement and enhance the reliability of indirect comparisons.
METHODS: This study employed two indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods, the Bucher adjusted indirect comparison and the anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to evaluate treatment efficacy. The key outcome was the 0-24 h time-weighted summed pain intensity difference (SPID_0-24h), the primary endpoint in both trials. Efficacy data for Anrikefon were derived from two RCTs in China (HSK21542-301 and HSK21542-303; 1 μg/kg every 8 hours), whereas Tegileridine data were derived from aggregate results in its product label (SHR8554-301; 0.75 mg loading, PCA bolus 0.05 mg), both using placebo as the comparator. A Bucher comparison using aggregate data from all trials estimated the mean difference (MD). An anchored MAIC was then conducted using IPD from HSK21542-303, reweighted to match the Tegileridine baseline characteristics (age, sex, baseline Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score).
RESULTS: The Bucher showed a SPID_0-24h MD of -3.33 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): -11.74, 2.74). The MAIC estimated an MD of -10.1 (95% CI: -22.0, 1.8), favoring Anrikefon without statistical significance. After reweighting, the effective sample size was 164, representing 64% of the pre-matching sample. Both methods indicated similar direction of effect; Bucher showed substantial heterogeneity (I²≈99%), whereas MAIC provided more stable estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: Anrikefon and Tegileridine demonstrated similar analgesic efficacy, with Anrikefon showing a numerically favorable effect. By matching baseline characteristics, the MAIC offered more stable and less heterogeneous estimates. Therefore, in the absence of head-to-head trials, MAIC may serve as an complement and enhance the reliability of indirect comparisons.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
CO118
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
SDC: Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)