Quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity and quality-adjusted progression-free survival with niraparib maintenance in first-line ovarian cancer in the PRIMA trial.

Background: The PRIMA phase 3 trial showed niraparib significantly prolongs median progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) responsive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, including those who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRd). This analysis of PRIMA examined the quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) of patients on maintenance niraparib versus placebo. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive once-daily maintenance niraparib (n = 487) or placebo (n = 246). QA-PFS was defined as the PFS of patients adjusted for their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) prior to disease progression, measured using European Quality of Life Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire index scores from the PRIMA trial. Q-TWiST was calculated by combining data on PFS, duration of symptomatic grade ⩾2 adverse events (fatigue or asthenia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal bloating) prior to disease progression, and EQ-5D index scores. Analyses used data collected up to the last date of PFS assessment (May 17, 2019). Results: The restricted mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with niraparib versus placebo in the HRd (n = 373) and overall intention-to-treat (ITT; n = 733) populations (mean gains of 6.5 [95% confidence interval; CI, 3.9-8.9] and 4.1 [95% CI, 2.2-5.8] months, respectively). There were also significant improvements in restricted mean Q-TWiST for niraparib versus placebo (mean gains of 5.9 [95% CI, 3.5-8.6] and 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-5.6] months, respectively) in the HRd and ITT populations. Conclusions: In patients with advanced OC, first-line niraparib maintenance was associated with significant gains in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST versus placebo. These findings demonstrate that niraparib maintenance treatment is associated with a PFS improvement and that treatment benefit is maintained even when HRQoL and/or toxicity data are combined with PFS in a single measure. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02655016; trial registration date: January 13, 2016. Plain language summary: Background: In a large clinical trial called PRIMA, patients with advanced cancer of the ovary (ovarian cancer) were given either niraparib (a type of cancer medicine) or placebo (a pill containing no medicine/active substances) after having chemotherapy (another type of cancer medicine). Taking niraparib after chemotherapy is called maintenance therapy and aims to give patients more time before their cancer returns or gets worse than if they were not given any further treatment. In the PRIMA trial, patients who took niraparib did have more time before their cancer progressed than if they took placebo. However, it is important to consider patients' quality of life, which can be made worse by cancer symptoms and/or side effects of treatment. Here, we assessed the overall benefit of niraparib for patients in PRIMA.Methods: Both the length of time before disease progression (or survival time) and quality of life were considered using two different analyses:● The first analysis was called quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and looked at how long patients survived with good quality of life.● The second analysis was called quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) and looked at how long patients survived without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects.Results: The PRIMA trial included 733 patients; 487 took niraparib and 246 took placebo. Around half of the patients in both groups had a type of ovarian cancer that responds particularly well to drugs like niraparib - they are known as homologous recombination deficiency (HRd) patients.● When information on quality of life (collected from patient questionnaires) and survival was combined in the QA-PFS analysis, HRd patients who took niraparib had approximately 6.5 months longer with a good quality of life before disease progression than those who took placebo. In the overall group of patients (including HRd patients and non-HRd patients), those who took niraparib had approximately 4 months longer than with placebo.● Using the second analysis (Q-TWiST) to combine information on survival with cancer symptoms and treatment side effects, the HRd patients taking niraparib had approximately 6 months longer without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects (such as nausea or vomiting) than patients taking placebo. In the overall group of patients, those taking niraparib had approximately 3.5 months longer without these cancer symptoms/side effects than patients receiving placebo.Conclusions: These results show that the survival benefits of niraparib treatment remain when accounting for patients' quality of life. These benefits were seen not only in HRd patients who are known to respond better to niraparib, but in the overall group of patients who took niraparib.

Systematic literature review of efficacy and safety of first-line maintenance therapy trials in advanced ovarian cancer.

Aim: To review safety and efficacy outcomes in studies of first-line maintenance therapies for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed (27 February 2020) to identify clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and Grade ≥3 adverse events. Results: Overall 50 references met prespecified criteria; 18 studies evaluated 10 different agents, including PARP inhibitors. PFS was an end point in 16 trials and OS in 12 trials. PARP inhibitors reported better PFS hazard ratios (HRs: 0.59-0.68) compared with other classes; no mature OS data were identified. Safety reporting was inconsistent. Conclusion: Reported PFS HRs were better for PARP inhibitors than for other ovarian cancer maintenance therapies; overall survival data remain immature.

This article reports the results from a systematic literature review (SLR), enabling a critical and unbiased comparison of clinical studies, of responses and side effects of first-line maintenance therapies used for advanced ovarian cancer. Overall, this SLR supports the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer as they demonstrated a greater effect on delaying further disease progression than other drug types assessed. However, due to large differences between the clinical studies included (e.g. design of the trial), direct comparisons between first-line maintenance therapies must be made with caution. Healthcare professionals must factor individual patient circumstances when choosing the most appropriate therapy.

Feasibility Study of a Network Meta-Analysis and Unanchored Population-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Niraparib, Olaparib, and Bevacizumab as Maintenance Therapies in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

Selecting a first-line (1L) maintenance option for ovarian cancer is challenging given the variety of therapies, differing trials, and the lack of head-to-head data for angiogenesis and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Thus, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can aid treatment decision making. This study assessed the feasibility of two ITCs, a network meta-analysis (NMA) and a population-adjusted ITC (PAIC), comparing the efficacy of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in the PRIMA trial (NCT02655016) with other 1L maintenance treatments. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to assess differences in trial design, population characteristics, treatment arms, and outcome measures. All 12 trials identified were excluded from the NMA due to the absence of a common comparator and differences in survival measures and/or inclusion criteria. The PAIC comparing PRIMA and PAOLA-1 trials was also not feasible due to differences in inclusion criteria, survival measures, and the previous receipt of chemotherapy/bevacizumab. Neither ITC met recommended guidelines for analysis; the results of such comparisons would not be considered appropriate evidence when selecting 1L maintenance options in ovarian cancer. ITCs in this setting should be performed cautiously, as many factors can preclude objective trial comparisons.

Budget impact analysis of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer from a US payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women and has the highest mortality rate of gynecological cancers. Niraparib was recently approved by the FDA for the maintenance treatment of adult patients with advanced epithelial OC in complete or partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) regardless of biomarker status. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct economic impact on US payers of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced OC. METHODS: The model considered 2 scenarios: a current scenario in which niraparib does not have regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy and a future scenario in which niraparib has regulatory approval for first-line maintenance therapy. The budget impact was calculated as the difference in cost between the 2 scenarios. The budget impact model (BIM) considered 2 different US health care payer perspectives: a commercial health plan and a Medicare plan. Both payer perspectives were assumed to have a hypothetical 1 million affiliates that were covered. Epidemiological data was used to estimate the eligible incident population of patients with OC. Active surveillance, bevacizumab (as a monotherapy), and olaparib (as a monotherapy restricted to patients with the breast cancer gene [BRCA] mutation) were included in the model as alternative maintenance treatment options (maintenance treatment options required 1% market share for inclusion). Cost categories considered in the BIM included diagnostic testing, treatment acquisition and administration, treatment-emergent adverse events, and subsequent therapy. Results were presented as an incremental budget impact to payers over 3 years. RESULTS: For a commercial health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact of adding niraparib as a first-line maintenance treatment option for advanced epithelial OC was calculated as $87,906, $93,106, and $87,037 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.007. For a Medicare health plan of 1 million affiliates, the estimated impact was calculated as $206,785, $219,017, and $204,739 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average budget impact per member per month was $0.018. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that budget impact was most sensitive to the treatment duration and market share of niraparib, the non-treatment-specific data on overall survival rates, and the treatment duration of bevacizumab. Treatment of drug-specific adverse events had little impact on the budget model. CONCLUSIONS: The model estimated a minimal budget impact to both a commercial or Medicare health plan following the introduction of niraparib as a first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced epithelial OC who are in complete or partial response to first-line PBC regardless of biomarker status. DISCLOSURES: This study was financially supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Liu, Hawkes, Maiese, and Hurteau are employees of GlaxoSmithKline. Travers was employed by GlaxoSmithKline at the time of this study. Spalding and Walder are employees of FIECON Ltd., which was contracted by GlaxoSmithKline to develop the budget impact model used in this study.

Qualitative and psychometric approaches to evaluate the PROMIS pain interference and sleep disturbance item banks for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) commonly experience pain despite the availability of disease-modifying treatments. Sleep disturbances are frequently reported in RA, with pain often a contributing factor. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference and Sleep Disturbance item banks were initially developed to provide insights into the patient experience of pain and sleep, respectively, though they were not specifically intended for use in RA populations. This study evaluated the content validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference and Sleep Disturbance item banks in RA and identified relevant content for short forms for patients with RA that achieved high measurement precision across a broad range of health. METHODS: A qualitative approach consisting of hybrid concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews was used to evaluate the content validity of the item banks in RA. Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended, allowing a range of concepts and responses to be captured. Findings from the qualitative interviews were used to select the most relevant items for the short forms, and psychometric evaluation, using existing item-response theory (IRT) item parameters, was used to evaluate the marginal reliability and measurement precision of the short forms across the range of the latent variables (i.e. pain interference and sleep disturbance). RESULTS: Thirty-two participants were interviewed. Participants reported that RA-related pain and sleep disturbances have substantial impacts on their daily lives, particularly with physical functioning. The PROMIS Pain Interference and Sleep Disturbance item banks were easy to understand and mostly relevant to their RA experiences, and the 7-day recall period was deemed appropriate. Qualitative and IRT-based approaches identified short forms for Pain Interference (11 items) and Sleep Disturbance (7 items) that had high relevance and measurement precision, with good coverage of the concepts identified by participants during concept elicitation. CONCLUSION: Pain and sleep disturbances affect many aspects of daily life in patients with RA and should be considered when novel treatments are developed. This study supports the use of the PROMIS Pain Interference and Sleep Disturbance item banks in RA, and the short forms developed herein have the potential to be used in clinical studies of RA.

Efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and safety of the anti-granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody otilimab (GSK3196165) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, phase 2b, dose-ranging study.

BACKGROUND: The human monoclonal antibody otilimab inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a key driver in immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and key patient-reported outcomes related to pain in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving otilimab. METHODS: This phase 2b, dose-ranging, multicentre, placebo-controlled study was done at 64 sites across 14 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving stable methotrexate were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1) to subcutaneous placebo or otilimab 22·5 mg, 45 mg, 90 mg, 135 mg, or 180 mg, plus methotrexate, once weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week until week 50. The randomisation schedule was generated by the sponsor, and patients were assigned to treatment by interactive response technology. Randomisation was blocked (block size of six) but was not stratified. Investigators, patients, and the sponsor were blinded to treatment. An unblinded administrator prepared and administered the study drug. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved disease activity score for 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2·6 at week 24. Patients who were not in the otilimab 180 mg group, without a good or moderate European League Against Rheumatism response (week 12) or with DAS28-CRP >3·2 (week 24) escaped to otilimab 180 mg. Patients who escaped were treated as non-responders in their original assigned group. Safety endpoints were incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events, infections, and pulmonary events. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504671. FINDINGS: Between July 23, 2015, and Dec 29, 2017, 222 patients were randomly assigned (37 to each group). 86 (49%) of 175 escaped to otilimab 180 mg at week 12 and 57 (69%) of 83 at week 24. At week 24, the proportion of patients with DAS28-CRP <2·6 was two (5%) of 37 in the otilimab 22·5 mg group, six (16%) of 37 in the 45 mg group, seven (19%) of 37 in the 90 mg group, five (14%) of 37 in the 135 mg group, five (14%) of 37 in the 180 mg, and one (3%) of 37 in the placebo group. The largest difference was achieved with otilimab 90 mg (16·2%; odds ratio [OR] 8·39, 95% CI 0·98-72·14; p=0·053). Adverse events were reported pre-escape in 19-24 (51-65%) patients and post escape in 10-17 (40-61%) patients across otilimab dose groups and in 18 (49%) of 37 and 22 (67%) of 33 in the placebo group. The most common adverse event was nasopharyngitis: 3-9 (8-24%) in otilimab groups and one (3%) in the placebo group pre-escape and 1-3 (4-10%) in otilimab groups and seven (21%) in the placebo group post escape. Pre-escape serious adverse events were foot fracture (otilimab 45 mg); arthralgia, myocardial infarction, dizziness (otilimab 90 mg); oesophageal spasm, acute pyelonephritis (otilimab 22·5 mg), and uterine leiomyoma (otilimab 135 mg). Post-escape serious adverse events were ankle fracture (placebo) and rheumatoid arthritis (otilimab 135 mg). There were no deaths or pulmonary events of clinical concern, and rates of serious infection were low. INTERPRETATION: Otilimab plus methotrexate was well tolerated and, despite not achieving the primary endpoint of DAS28-CRP remission, there were improvements compared with placebo in disease activity scores. Of note, patients reported significant improvement in pain and physical function, supporting further clinical development of otilimab in rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lapatinib plus Letrozole in Post-Menopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-and HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the EGF30008 and TAnDEM (TrAstuzumab in Dual HER2 ER-positive Metastatic breast cancer) trials, anti-HER2 therapy plus an aromatase inhibitor (lapatinib + letrozole (LAP + LET) and trastuzumb + anastrozole (TZ + ANA), respectively) improved time to progression versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (LET and ANA, respectively) in post-menopausal women with previously untreated hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A partitionedsurvival analysis model using data from EGF30008 and published results of TAnDEM and other literature was used to evaluate the incremental direct medical cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with LAP + LET versus LET, ANA, and TZ + ANA in post-menopausal women with previously untreated HR+ and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: Incremental costs for LAP + LET are £ 34,737 versus LET, £ 35,995 versus ANA, and £ 5,513 versus TZ + ANA. Corresponding QALYs gained are 0.467, 0.601, and 0.252 years. Cost/QALY gained with LAP + LET is £ 74,448 versus LET, £ 59,895 versus ANA, and £ 21,836 versus TZ + ANA. Given a threshold of £ 30,000/QALY, the estimated probability that LAP + LET is cost-effective is 1.4% versus LET, 9.2% versus ANA, and 51% versus TZ + ANA. CONCLUSIONS: Based on criteria for the evaluation of health technologies in the UK (£ 30,000/QALY), LAP + LET is not likely to be cost-effective versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy but may be cost-effective versus TZ + ANA, although the latter comparison is associated with substantial uncertainty.