RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, alone or in combination, have shown benefit as maintenance treatment following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, no trials have compared a PARP inhibitor plus bevacizumab versus a PARP inhibitor, or a PARP inhibitor versus bevacizumab. We performed an unanchored population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance treatments for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: Analyses were performed using aggregate data from the PRIMA trial and patient-level data from a subset of patients from the PAOLA-1 trial that met surgery and staging eligibility criteria of PRIMA. Propensity weights were used to match baseline characteristics of the PAOLA-1 subset to those of the PRIMA population. Analysis was performed in overall (biomarker-unselected) and homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD)-positive populations. RESULTS: A total of 595/806 (266/387 HRD-positive) PAOLA-1 patients were included. After matching, the effective sample size for PAOLA-1 was 532 (242 HRD-positive). Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 43% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.69] versus niraparib and by 40% (HR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.74) versus bevacizumab in the biomarker-unselected population and by 43% (HR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) and 60% (HR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29-0.55), respectively, in the HRD-positive population. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of maintenance niraparib and bevacizumab arms were comparable in the biomarker-unselected population (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.87-1.32); however, niraparib showed a 30% reduced risk compared with bevacizumab (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) in the HRD-positive population. CONCLUSIONS: In biomarker-unselected and HRD-positive patients, combination treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment improves PFS for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer compared with either bevacizumab or niraparib alone. Results are hypothesis generating and could guide randomised trial design.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In oncology trials, treatment switching from the comparator to the experimental regimen is often allowed but may lead to underestimating overall survival (OS) of an experimental therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of treatment switching from control to olaparib on OS using the final survival data from the PROfound study and compares validated adjustment methods to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit with olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary population from PROfound (Cohort A) was included, alongside two populations approved for treatment with olaparib by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration: BRCAm and Cohort A+B (excluding the PPP2R2A gene). Five methods were explored to adjust for switching: excluding or censoring patients in the control arm who receive subsequent olaparib, Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Model (RPSFTM), Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights, and Two-Stage Estimation. RESULTS: The RPSFTM was considered the most appropriate approach for PROfound as the results were robust to sensitivity analysis testing of the common treatment effect assumption. For Cohort A, the final OS hazard ratio reduced from 0.69 (95% CI 0.5-0.97) to between 0.42 (0.18-0.90) and 0.52 (0.31-1.00) for olaparib versus control, depending on the RPSFTM selected. Median OS reduced from 14.7 months to between 11.73 and 12.63 months for control. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the statistically significant (P < 0.05) survival benefit of olaparib versus control observed in Cohort A of PROfound is likely to be underestimated if adjustment for treatment switching from control to olaparib is not conducted. The RPSFTM was considered the most plausible method, although further development and validation of robust methods to estimate the magnitude of impact of treatment switching is needed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist on real-world treatment patterns and the effectiveness of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors in germline BRCA (gBRCA)-mutated breast cancer. METHODS: Adults with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively selected from the Flatiron Health database. Patients with known gBRCA status were classified as mutated (gBRCAm) or wild type (gBRCAwt). Time-to-first subsequent therapy or death (TFST) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the earliest line of therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. RESULTS: Of 2968 patients with HR+/HER2- mBC receiving a CDK4/6 inhibitor, 859 (28.9%) had known gBRCA status, of whom 9.9% were gBRCAm and 90.1% gBRCAwt. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TFST was 10 (7-11) months in the gBRCAm group, 10 (9-11) months in the gBRCAwt group, and 11 (10-12) months in the combined gBRCAwt and unknown gBRCA group; median (95% CI) OS was 26 (21-not estimated), 37 (31-51), and 33 (31-35) months, respectively. Cox models indicated the gBRCAm group had shorter TFST (stratified hazard ratio [sHR] 1.24; 95% CI 0.96-1.59) and OS (sHR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06-2.14) than the gBRCAwt group. The gBRCAm group had shorter TFST (sHR 1.38; 95% CI 1.08-1.75) and OS (sHR 1.22; 95% CI 0.88-1.71) than the combined group. CONCLUSION: The results of this real-world study suggest that treatment outcomes with CDK4/6 inhibitors may be worse in patients with gBRCAm mBC than in their counterparts with gBRCAwt and unknown gBRCA status, suggesting potential differences in tumor biology. This result highlights the unmet need in patients with gBRCAm requiring optimized treatment selection and sequencing. Future exploration in larger samples of patients who have had biomarker testing is warranted.

RESUMEN

Aim: Two poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib are approved for patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Methods: A Bayesian fixed-effects indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analysis was performed to simulate the comparative efficacy (primary outcome of progression-free survival [PFS]) and safety of PARP inhibitor monotherapy. Results: ITC of data from the OlympiAD (olaparib) and EMBRACA (talazoparib) studies suggested no significant difference in efficacy (PFS) between olaparib and talazoparib. However, there were differences in specific adverse events; patients receiving olaparib had a higher rate of nausea and vomiting, while those receiving talazoparib had a higher rate of alopecia and anemia. Discussion: These data support the benefit of the PARP inhibitor class in gBRCAm HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objectives: The randomized Phase IIIb/IV EXTEND trial showed that extended-pulsed fidaxomicin significantly improved sustained clinical cure and reduced recurrence versus vancomycin in patients ≥60 years old with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Cost-effectiveness of extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin as first-line therapy for CDI was evaluated in this patient population. Methods: Clinical results from EXTEND and inputs from published sources were used in a semi-Markov treatment-sequence model with nine health states and a 1 year time horizon to assess costs and QALYs. The model was based on a healthcare system perspective (NHS and Personal Social Services) in England. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Patients receiving first-line extended-pulsed fidaxomicin treatment had a 0.02 QALY gain compared with first-line vancomycin (0.6267 versus 0.6038 QALYs/patient). While total drug acquisition costs were higher for extended-pulsed fidaxomicin than for vancomycin when used first-line (£1356 versus £260/patient), these were offset by lower total hospitalization costs (which also included treatment monitoring and community care costs; £10 815 versus £11 459/patient) and lower costs of managing adverse events (£694 versus £1199/patient), reflecting the lower incidence of CDI recurrence and adverse events with extended-pulsed fidaxomicin. Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin cost £53 less per patient than vancomycin over 1 year. The probability that first-line extended-pulsed fidaxomicin was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000/QALY was 76% in these patients. Conclusions: While fidaxomicin acquisition costs are higher than those of vancomycin, the observed reduced recurrence rate with extended-pulsed fidaxomicin makes it a more effective and less costly treatment strategy than vancomycin for first-line treatment of CDI in older patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states, progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease, and death, was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous nivolumab versus oral everolimus over a lifetime. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated based on parametric distributions fitted to PFS and overall survival (OS) data from CheckMate 025 (N = 821), a large randomized phase 3 trial of nivolumab versus everolimus for advanced RCC. Health state utility data were derived from CheckMate 025 EQ-5D data. Scenario analyses and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of uncertainty in model inputs on outcomes. RESULTS: Over a 25-year lifetime horizon, treatment with nivolumab resulted in a gain of 0.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus everolimus. Nivolumab had greater total costs versus everolimus ($US197,089 vs. $US163,902), mainly due to higher acquisition costs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), a measure of incremental costs divided by incremental QALYs, was $US51,714 per QALY gained for nivolumab versus everolimus, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $US44,576 per life-year gained for nivolumab versus everolimus. In sensitivity analyses, average body weight had the greatest impact on the ICUR for nivolumab versus everolimus (base case $US51,714; range $US8863-$US94,566). At a $US150,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, nivolumab had a 91.7% probability of being cost-effective versus everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, at a WTP threshold of $US150,000 per QALY, nivolumab was found to be cost-effective. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were survival inputs for OS and the average weight of patients; the latter directly affects nivolumab drug acquisition cost.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The ß3-adrenoceptor agonist, mirabegron, and antimuscarinic agents provide similar efficacy for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), but mirabegron appears to be associated with better persistence, perhaps due to an absence of anticholinergic side-effects. This study estimated the expected costs associated with the management of OAB in Canada from a societal perspective by utilizing real-world evidence. METHODS: An economic model with monthly cycles and a 1-year time horizon was developed to depict a treatment pathway for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with OAB. At model entry, patients receive mirabegron or an antimuscarinic. Patients who do not persist may switch treatment, undergo a minimally invasive procedure, or remain symptomatic (uncontrolled). The model includes direct costs (e.g. physician visits) and indirect costs (e.g. lost productivity). A one-way univariate sensitivity analysis assessed a ±20% variation in each of the key model inputs. RESULTS: At 1 year, a greater proportion of patients persisted on treatment with mirabegron compared with antimuscarinics (33% vs 15-23%), and a smaller proportion switched treatment (17% vs 20-22%). The number of healthcare visits (292 vs 299-304), pads used (74,098 vs 77,878-81,669), and work hours lost (4,497 vs 5,372-6,249) were all lower for mirabegron vs antimuscarinics. The estimated total annual cost of treatment per patient with mirabegron was $2,127.46 Canadian dollars (CAD) ($5.82 CAD/day) compared with $2,150.20-$2,496.69 CAD ($5.89-$6.84 CAD/day) for antimuscarinics. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated the results are robust. CONCLUSIONS: Improved persistence observed in routine clinical practice with mirabegron appears to translate into benefits of reduced healthcare resource use, and lower direct and indirect costs of treatment compared with antimuscarinics. Overall, these data suggest that mirabegron may offer clinical and economic benefits for the management of patients with OAB in Canada.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Our objective was to estimate the economic outcomes of using mirabegron versus antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from a societal perspective in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed using Microsoft Excel®. The time horizon and cycle length are 12 and 1 months, respectively; and the hypothetical cohort size 100 patients. Antimuscarinic comparators are fesoterodine, oxybutynin extended release (ER) and immediate release (IR), solifenacin, tolterodine ER/IR, trospium ER/IR, darifenacin and flavoxate. Model inputs included real-world treatment patterns data, healthcare resource use (e.g. clinic visits) and direct and indirect costs (e.g. drug acquisition and productivity loss). Model outputs included patient disposition, healthcare resource use, drug acquisition costs and other treatment-related costs over a 1-year time horizon. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the key drivers of the model. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, total annual costs per patient were lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (£1270.84 vs. 1321.71-1607.48). Healthcare resource use was lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (115 vs. 119-123 general practitioner visits; 173 vs. 178-185 specialist visits and 0.0042 vs. 0.0050-0.0060 surgical operations) and fewer work hours were lost (4017 vs. 5114-6990 [all per 100 patients]). Sensitivity analysis showed the model was sensitive to persistence and switching rates, although the impact on the overall results was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, using mirabegron to treat OAB may improve persistence and lead to reductions in switching treatment, healthcare resource utilization, productivity costs, and overall treatment costs versus antimuscarinics.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) represents a significant economic healthcare burden, especially the cost of recurrent disease. Fidaxomicin produced significantly lower recurrence rates and higher sustained cure rates in clinical trials. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in Germany in the first-line treatment of patient subgroups with CDI at increased risk of recurrence. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin from a payer perspective in Germany. The model cycle length was 10 days. The time horizon was 1 year. Model inputs were probability of clinical cure, 30-day probability of recurrence, and 30-day attributable mortality based on evidence from two randomized controlled trials comparing fidaxomicin and vancomycin in patients with CDI. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, cost per bed-day saved, and cost per recurrence avoided. RESULTS: Despite higher drug acquisition costs, fidaxomicin was dominant in the cancer subgroup (less costly and more effective) and cost-effective in the other subgroups, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios vs. vancomycin ranging from €26,900 to €44,500. Hospitalization costs of the first-line treatment of CDI with fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin were lower in every patient subgroup, resulting in budget impacts ranging from -€1325 (in patients ≥65 years) to -€2438 (in cancer patients). Reductions in the cost of treating recurrence with fidaxomicin ranged from -€574.32 per patient in those receiving concomitant antibiotics to -€1500.68 per patient in renally impaired patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patient subgroups with CDI at increased recurrence risk, fidaxomicin was cost-effective vs. vancomycin, and less costly and more effective in patients with cancer.

Asunto(s)