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.

  1. Pulido et al. N Engl J Med 2013;369809-18.
  2. McLaughlin et al. Eur Resp J 2015;46:405-413.
  3. Bucher et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997;6:683-691.
  4. 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

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×