Supplementary materials: How does risdiplam compare with other treatments for Types 1–3 spinal muscular atrophy: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'How does risdiplam compare with other treatments for Types 1–3 spinal muscular atrophy: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplementary figure 1Supplementary figure 2Supplementary figure 3Supplementary figure 4Supplementary figure 5Supplementary figure 6Supplementary Table 1: PICOS framework and additional search criteria for the SLR.Supplementary Table 2: List of data sources used in the SLR.Supplementary Table 3: Key deviations from statistical analysis plan and justificationSupplementary Table 4: Clinical trials excluded from the SLR.Supplementary Table 5: Availability of endpoints of interest in Type 1 SMA.Supplementary Table 6: Baseline characteristics of FIREFISH pre- and post‑matching with STR1VE‑US (MAIC analysis).Supplementary Table 7: STC model fit statistics of FIREFISH versus STR1VE-US.Supplementary Table 8: BSID-III covariate estimates (STC FIREFISH vs STR1VE-US).Supplementary Table 9: CHOP-INTEND covariate estimates (STC FIREFISH vs STR1VE-US).Supplementary Table 10: Availability of endpoints of interest in Types 2 and 3 SMA.Supplementary Table 11: Analyses of HFMSE outcomes in SUNFISH and CHERISH at Month 12.Aim: To conduct indirect treatment comparisons between risdiplam and other approved treatments for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Patients & methods: Individual patient data from risdiplam trials were compared with aggregated data from published studies of nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec, accounting for heterogeneity across studies. Results: In Type 1 SMA, studies of risdiplam and nusinersen included similar populations. Indirect comparison results found improved survival and motor function with risdiplam versus nusinersen. Comparison with onasemnogene abeparvovec in Type 1 SMA and with nusinersen in Types 2/3 SMA was challenging due to substantial differences in study populations; no concrete conclusions could be drawn from the indirect comparison analyses. Conclusion: Indirect comparisons support risdiplam as a superior alternative to nusinersen in Type 1 SMA.