Table 2.

Summary of results of matching performed for the asciminib MAIC

Treatment Comparison	Comparator Study	How was matching on eligibility criteria performed?	Number of patients in ASCEMBL after matchinga
Asciminib vs Ponatinib	PACE	ASCEMBL allowed patients with CCyR at baseline whereas PACE excluded patients with CCyR. 19 patients from ASCEMBL had CCyR at baseline; 35 patients had unknown CCyR status. All patients having confirmed CCyR at baseline or unknown CCyR status (n = 54) were removed from ASCEMBL. The following scenarios were considered in addition to the base case: Removal of patients having confirmed CCyR at baseline (n = 19)	103
Asciminib vs Nilotinib	Giles et al. (2010)	ASCEMBL and Giles et al. (2010) had similar eligibility criteria. Thus, no patients were removed from ASCEMBL.  A scenario where patients achieving major cytogenic response were removed was considered separately.b	157
Asciminib vs Dasatinib	Rossi et al. (2013) Tan et al. (2019)	ASCEMBL and both studies had similar eligibility criteria. Thus, no patients were removed from ASCEMBL.	157
Asciminib vs Nilotinib/Dasatinib	Ibrahim et al. (2010)	ASCEMBL and Ibrahim et al. (2010) had similar eligibility criteria. Only CCyR response data were available from Ibrahim et al. (2010). CCyR response data were only available for the CCyR subgroup in ASCEMBL. Thus, the ASCEMBL CCyR subgroup (n = 103) was considered for the MAIC.	103

^aThere were 157 patients in ASCEMBL prior to the matching process

^b21% of patients who were on nilotinib (in the study conducted by Giles et al. 2010) were able to achieve major cytogenic response. However, it was not known if the response achieved in these patients was the best response achieved or was achieved at the start of nilotinib therapy. Thus, major cytogenic response was assumed to be at the start of the nilotinib treatment for the base case analysis as a conservative assumption

CCyR complete cytogenic response; MAIC matching-adjusted indirect comparison; TTD time to treatment discontinuation