Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Crisaborole topical ointment, 2%, is a nonsteroidal, topical anti-inflammatory phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). The objective of the current analysis was to compare the efficacy of crisaborole 2% relative to pimecrolimus 1%, tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD by comparing improvement in Investigator's Static Global Assessment scores ( (ISGA scores of 0/1 indicating "clear or almost clear"). ISGA was selected as the primary efficacy outcome given the US Food and Drug Administration's recommendations on the use of ISGA for assessment of global severity in AD and to align with efficacy measurements in the crisaborole registration trials. Safety endpoints could not be analyzed due to differences in outcome definitions across studies. METHODS: Efficacy of crisaborole was evaluated using individual patient data (IPD) from two pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and efficacy of comparators was evaluated using published RCTs included in a previous network meta-analysis. Vehicle controls were not comparable due to differences in ingredients and population imbalance and, therefore, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used, which reweighted IPD for crisaborole to estimate absolute response in comparator populations. RESULTS: The odds of achieving an improvement in ISGA score was higher with crisaborole 2% versus pimecrolimus 1% (odds ratio [OR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.85; effective sample size = 627, reduced from 1021; p value < 0.001) and for crisaborole 2% versus tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.09-2.05; effective sample size = 311, reduced from 1021; p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The unanchored MAIC suggests that the odds of achieving an improvement in ISGA score is greater with crisaborole 2% than with pimecrolimus 1% or tacrolimus 0.03% in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD. These results are consistent with findings from the previously published network meta-analysis, which used a different methodology for performing indirect treatment comparisons.