MEDICAL THERAPY FOR PULMONARY ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION (PAH)- AN INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISON OF MACITENTAN AND BOSENTAN
Author(s)
Di Scala L1, Perchenet L2, Lemarié JC3
1Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Allschwil, BL, Switzerland, 2Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Allschwil, Switzerland, 3Effi-Stat, Paris, France
OBJECTIVES PAH is a rare and fatal disease associated with significant morbidity. In SERAPHIN (N=750) [1], the endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) macitentan decreased the risk of a composite outcome endpoint by 45% vs placebo (hazard ratio, HR [97.5% confidence interval, CI] 0.547 [0.392, 0.762]). In COMPASS-2 (N=334) [2], bosentan (another ERA) did not significantly decrease the risk of a similar endpoint vs placebo (HR [97.3% CI] 0.831 [0.582, 1.187]). This analysis compares the long-term efficacy and safety of macitentan vs bosentan using SERAPHIN and COMPASS-2 data. METHODS An anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) intention-to-treat analysis was performed using the Bucher method [3]. The composite endpoints of morbidity/mortality in both trials were re-mapped to the endpoint defined by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use [4] to maximize comparability. Comparisons used 95% CIs around the HR. Safety endpoints included liver function tests, hemoglobin decrease and occurrence of peripheral edema. RESULTS Analyses showed a statistically significant, clinically relevant risk reduction of 31% in the primary endpoint for macitentan vs bosentan (HR [95% CI] 0.694 [0.484, 0.996]). An advantage for macitentan vs bosentan in the point estimates was seen for other endpoints including PAH-related hospitalization and death. Safety comparisons highlighted decreased risks in pulmonary edema of 76% (0.235 [0.063, 0.880]) and alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevation of 35% (0.648 [0.360, 1.167]) for macitentan vs bosentan. The risk of hemoglobin decrease below 10g/dL was higher in macitentan although not statistically significant (1.934 [0.643, 5.811]). CONCLUSIONS Acknowledging the limitations of the ITC method, this analysis suggests superiority of macitentan vs bosentan in PAH in both efficacy and safety.
- Pulido et al. N Engl J Med 2013;369809-18.
- McLaughlin et al. Eur Resp J 2015;46:405-413.
- Bucher et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997;6:683-691.
- Guideline on the clinical investigations of medicinal products for the treatment of PAH, CHMP 2009.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2019-09, ISPOR Latin America 2019, Bogota, Colombia
Value in Health Regional, Volume 20S (October 2019)
Code
PRO1
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders, Drugs, Rare and Orphan Diseases, Respiratory-Related Disorders