Aim: This study aimed to estimate the relative efficacy between garadacimab 200 mg once monthly (200 QM) and two dosing regimens of lanadelumab (300 mg once every 2 weeks [300 Q2W] and 300 mg once every 4 weeks [300 Q4W]) in adolescent/adult patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs), in the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Materials & methods: Individual patient data were available from the phase II (NCT03712228) and the phase III VANGUARD (NCT04656418) trials investigating garadacimab, and published summary-level data from the phase III HELP trial investigating lanadelumab (NCT02586805). The primary outcome was time-normalized number of HAE attacks. Secondary efficacy outcomes included time-normalized number of HAE attacks requiring on-demand treatment, time-normalized number of moderate and/or severe HAE attacks, and proportion of attack-free patients. Quality of life (QoL) was also assessed via change from baseline in AE-QoL total score. Results: Compared with lanadelumab 300 Q2W, garadacimab 200 QM statistically significantly reduced number of moderate and/or severe HAE attacks (rate ratio [RR]; 95% confidence interval: 0.25; 0.07, 0.84) and improved AE-QoL score (mean difference: -17.38; -33.67, -1.08). Compared with lanadelumab 300 Q4W, garadacimab 200 QM showed statistically significant improvements in all outcomes: HAE attacks (RR: 0.29; 0.13, 0.63), attacks requiring on-demand treatment (RR: 0.29; 0.13, 0.66), moderate and/or severe HAE attacks (RR: 0.15; 0.05, 0.49), proportion of attack-free patients (hazard ratio: 3.25; 1.45, 7.29), and AE-QoL score (mean difference: -21.29; -37.39, -5.18). Conclusion: These MAICs showed improved efficacy and QoL with garadacimab compared with lanadelumab across multiple endpoints. These findings demonstrate that garadacimab may provide improved therapeutic benefit compared with lanadelumab in the long-term prophylactic treatment of patients with HAE.
Compared with lanadelumab 300 Q4W, garadacimab 200 QM showed statistically significant improvements in all outcomes assessed.
consistent reported Q4W estimates from a residual-confounding-prone indirect comparison
Compared with lanadelumab 300 Q2W, garadacimab 200 QM statistically significantly reduced number of moderate and/or severe HAE attacks and improved AE-QoL score.
two significant estimates accurately reported from a small, population-adjusted indirect comparison
Overall, these results suggest that garadacimab may provide improved therapeutic benefit compared with lanadelumab.
broad benefit framing rests on indirect evidence and mixed Q2W statistical results
The attack rate for patients receiving garadacimab 200 QM was lower than that of patients receiving lanadelumab 300 Q2W (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.37; p = 0.200), but this result was not statistically significant.
the primary Q2W estimate is directly reported but imprecise within an indirect comparison
Derived from the full evaluation — not a separate score.
Strengths
The study provides the first cited population-adjusted comparison of garadacimab with lanadelumab where no head-to-head randomized trial is available, including a comparative QoL analysis.
↳ Introduction; Discussion, paragraphs 1 and 6
The methods specify anchored and unanchored analyses, balance diagnostics, robust variance estimation, and sequential TEM scenarios. Tables 2–8 report the resulting ESS reductions rather than concealing information loss.
↳ Statistical Analysis; Scenario Analyses; Tables 2–8
The Discussion identifies unresolved eligibility differences, unavailable anxiety and depression covariates, loading-dose differences, and stronger assumptions for the unanchored endpoint, then warns that these differences condition uncertainty.
↳ Discussion, loading-dose and limitations paragraphs
Limitations
The pooled trials differ in phase, duration, eligibility, geography, sponsors, and loading schedules, while important covariates reported as highly ranked could not be adjusted. These differences leave untestable residual confounding.
↳ Discussion, limitations
The QoL analyses lose 49% and 55% of effective sample size after adjustment, leaving imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals. Other anchored analyses also show material ESS reductions.
↳ Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8; Table 5
The Abstract reports the two significant Q2W findings but omits that overall attack rate, attacks requiring on-demand treatment, and attack-free status were not statistically significant. The conclusion then describes improved efficacy and QoL broadly across regimens.
↳ Abstract, Results; Table 5; Conclusion
The analysis addresses a genuine comparative-efficacy gap and uses an established MAIC framework with placebo anchoring, balance diagnostics, ESS reporting, and scenario analyses. Its Methodological Rigour score is held in the upper part of the 2.5–3.4 band because pooled-trial differences, unavailable modifiers, substantial ESS loss, and the unanchored attack-free analysis create meaningful inferential uncertainty. Positioning scores higher because the Discussion explicitly identifies most of these limitations and links remaining differences to uncertainty. Reporting is reduced because the Abstract omits three non-significant Q2W outcomes, including the primary attack-rate endpoint, while the conclusion describes improved efficacy broadly.
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Are you an author of this paper?
Sound3.4
Confidence mediumThe analysis supplies previously unavailable population-adjusted comparisons between garadacimab and two lanadelumab regimens where no head-to-head trial exists. The advance is useful but incremental and remains bounded by indirect identification.
“have not been compared in any head-to-head trials”
The MAIC follows NICE DSU TSD 18, uses anchored analyses where possible, reports ESS changes, and includes sequential TEM scenarios. Confidence is constrained by substantial ESS loss, unavailable modifiers, pooled trial differences, and an unanchored attack-free analysis.
“Unanchored MAICs rely on the assumption that both prognostic factors and TEMs are balanced across trials”
The full text clearly separates Q2W and Q4W estimates and reports significant and non-significant findings. The Abstract and broad concluding language nevertheless create a more uniformly favorable impression than the mixed Q2W results support.
“These MAICs showed improved efficacy and QoL with garadacimab compared with lanadelumab across multiple endpoints.”
The Discussion relates the analysis to prior NMAs and identifies trial-design, loading-dose, eligibility, follow-up, and unmeasured-modifier limitations. Major limitations are generally connected to interpretive uncertainty, although not every pooling or multiplicity issue is examined in equal depth.
“the uncertainty in the analysis estimates must be considered in the context of these remaining differences”
Caveats4 of 4 checks
The numerical findings are reported consistently, but the HELP trial identifier is inconsistent within the article. The discrepancy appears traceability-related rather than consequential to the reported estimates.
No supplied-text evidence indicates a research-conduct problem. Statements not visible in the supplied article, including ethics and conflict-of-interest declarations for the secondary analysis, remain assessability gaps rather than reliability findings.
Flags: 1 declared / 5 total
20 of 20 checkable references verified
33 references in manuscript 13 are books, websites or datasets — counted, but not index-checkable citation details diverge from the cited records for 1 reference
References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.
No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).
Sources: Crossref (incl. Retraction Watch) ✓
Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.
The estimates can inform evidence assessments now, but they are not deployment-ready comparative proof because they derive from cross-trial adjustment rather than a direct randomized comparison. Additional corroboration would be needed for strong clinical action.
“indirect treatment comparisons are not replacements for direct head-to-head evidence”
AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.
Keep reading
Other papers Nabu has evaluated blind, starting with the same field.
Riedl, Farkas, Aygören-Pürsün, et al. · 2024 · Clinical medicine
Oral sebetralstat provided faster times to the beginning of symptom relief, reduction in attack severity, and complete attack resolution than placebo.
Well-supportedRiedl, Tachdjian, Lumry, et al. · 2024 · Clinical medicine
Donidalorsen at a dose of 80 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 or 8 weeks significantly reduced the hereditary angioedema attack rate
SupportedCohn, Gurugama, Magerl, et al. · 2024 · Clinical medicine
NTLA-2002 administered in a single dose of 25 mg or 50 mg reduced angioedema attacks and led to robust and sustained reduction in total plasma kallikrein levels in patients with hereditary angioedema.
Tentative