Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen for the treatment of symptomatic patients with spinal muscular atrophy type 1

Objective: Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a one-time intravenous gene replacement therapy, and nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide that requires ongoing intrathecal administration, have been evaluated as treatments for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type 1 in separate Phase III trials, but no head-to-head comparison studies have been conducted. Onasemnogene abeparvovec was compared with nusinersen using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the treatment effect of onasemnogene abeparvovec relative to nusinersen for the treatment of symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 for up to 24 months of follow-up.

Methods: In the absence of studies for both onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen with a common comparator, a Bayesian naïve indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and MAIC between onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen were conducted to compare efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen. Outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and motor milestone achievements (independent sitting and independent walking). Relative treatment effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) and risk difference.

Results: Pooled and weighted patient-level data illustrated a favorable effect toward onasemnogene abeparvovec, suggesting longer EFS for patients compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.07-0.54; 99% CI: 0.05-0.74]). At 24 months of follow-up, patients receiving onasemnogene abeparvovec were statistically significantly more likely to achieve the motor milestone of sitting independently compared with patients treated with nusinersen. Although statistically significant differences were not observed at 6 to 18 months between treatment options, the likelihood of sitting independently at 12 and 18 months numerically favored onasemnogene abeparvovec. A numerically greater likelihood of walking by 18 and 24 months was also observed for patients treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec compared with nusinersen. Onasemnogene abeparvovec therapy was also associated with a favorable (but statistically nonsignificant) outcome for OS and may be associated with prolonged survival compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.09-1.32; 99% CI: 0.06-2.01]). Bayesian naïve ITC results were similar to the MAIC analysis for EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievements. Small sample size limited covariate matching to baseline CHOP INTEND and nutritional support requirement, leading to wider CIs and statistically inconclusive outcomes for some of the results.

Conclusions: Despite limitations of the current MAIC analysis (mainly a small sample size for statistical testing, even for the pooled onasemnogene abeparvovec trials, and potential differences in prognostic and predictive factors between studies), the relative treatment effects in EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievement indicate that onasemnogene abeparvovec may offer continued benefit compared with nusinersen through 24 months of follow-up.