Time to next treatment or death as a candidate surrogate endpoint for overall survival in advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an insight from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial.

BACKGROUND: Time to next treatment or death (TNT-D) may be a patient-relevant endpoint in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This study investigated TNT-D as a surrogate endpoint (SE) for overall survival (OS) in previously untreated advanced melanoma patients. METHODS: Patient-level data from the 60-month results of the CheckMate 067 randomised, controlled trial were used. Analyses were carried out for nivolumab monotherapy or nivolumab with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab monotherapy. The SE 1-step validation method based on a joint frailty-copula model was used where the country of enrolment was applied to define clusters. Kendall's τ and the coefficient of determination (R2trial) were estimated for respective measurements of association at the individual and cluster levels. The surrogate threshold effect, the maximum threshold hazard ratio for TNT-D that would translate into OS benefit, was estimated. A leave-one-out cross-validation analysis was carried out to evaluate model robustness. RESULTS: Fifteen clusters of data were generated from 945 patients. For both nivolumab-containing arms, the association between TNT-D and OS was deemed acceptable at the individual level (Kendall's τ > 0.60) and strong at the cluster level, with R2trial fairly close to 1, with narrow confidence intervals. The estimated surrogate threshold effects were 0.61 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and 0.49 for nivolimub + ipilimumab versus ipilimumab. Cross-validation results showed minimum variation of the correlation measures and satisfactory predictive accuracy for the model. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that TNT-D may be a valuable SE in previously untreated advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Surrogacy analyses considering multiple randomised controlled trials are warranted for confirming these findings.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma☆.

BACKGROUND: Approved first-line treatments for patients with BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma include nivolumab (a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) plus ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitor; NIVO+IPI) and the BRAF/MEK inhibitors dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB+TRAM), encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO+BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (VEM+COBI). Results from prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing these treatments have not yet been reported. This analysis evaluated the relative efficacy and safety of NIVO+IPI versus DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified RCTs for DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Individual patient-level data for NIVO+IPI were derived from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (BRAF-mutant cohort) and restricted to match the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the comparator trials. Treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) models. Safety outcomes (grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events) with NIVO+IPI and the comparators were compared. RESULTS: In the Cox proportional hazards analysis, NIVO+IPI showed improved OS compared with DAB+TRAM (HR = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.73), ENCO+BINI (HR = 0.60; CI, 0.42-0.85), and VEM+COBI (HR = 0.50; CI, 0.36-0.70) for the overall study period. In the time-varying analysis, NIVO+IPI was associated with significant improvements in OS and PFS compared with the BRAF/MEK inhibitors 12 months after treatment initiation. There were no significant differences between NIVO+IPI and BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment from 0 to 12 months. Safety outcomes favored DAB+TRAM over NIVO+IPI, whereas NIVO+IPI was comparable to VEM+COBI. CONCLUSION: Results of this MAIC demonstrated durable OS and PFS benefits for patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treated with NIVO+IPI compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, with the greatest benefits noted after 12 months.

Real-world systemic therapy treatment patterns for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in Canada.

Background: In the present study, we examined real-world treatment patterns for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (scchn) in Canada, which are largely unknown. Methods: Oncologists across Canada provided data for disease history, characteristics, and treatment patterns during May-July 2016 for 6-8 consecutive patients receiving first-line or second-line drug treatment for scchn (including locally advanced and recurrent or metastatic disease). Results: Information from 16 physicians for 109 patients receiving drug treatment for scchn was provided; 1 patient was excluded from the treatment-pattern analysis. Median age in the cohort was 63 years [interquartile range (iqr): 57-68 years], and 24% were current smokers, with a mean exposure of 26.2 ± 12.7 pack-years. The most common tumour site was the oropharynx (48%). Most patients (84%) received platinum-based regimens as first-line treatment (44% received cisplatin monotherapy). Use of cetuximab-based regimens as first-line treatment was limited (17%). Of 53 patients receiving second-line treatment, 87% received a first-line platinum-based regimen. Median time between first-line treatment with a platinum-based regimen and initiation of second-line treatment was 55 days (iqr: 20-146 days). The most common second-line regimen was cetuximab monotherapy (43%); platinum-based regimens were markedly infrequent (13%). Conclusions: Our analysis provides real-world insight into scchn clinical practice patterns in Canada, which could inform reimbursement decision-making. High use of platinum-based regimens in first-line drug treatment was generally reflective of treatment guidelines; cetuximab use in the second-line was higher than anticipated. Additional real-world studies are needed to understand the effect of novel therapies such as immuno-oncology agents on clinical practice and outcomes, particularly for recurrent or metastatic scchn.

Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: New regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 have demonstrated substantial improvement in sustained virologic response (SVR) compared with existing therapies, but are considerably more expensive. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two novel all-oral, interferon-free regimens for the treatment of patients with HCV genotype 3: daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir (DCV + SOF) and sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (SOF + RBV), from a Canadian health-system perspective. METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model was developed to compare the effect of various treatment strategies on the natural history of the disease and their associated costs in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Patients were initially distributed across fibrosis stages F0-F4, and may incur disease progression through fibrosis stages and on to end-stage liver disease complications and death; or may achieve SVR. Clinical efficacy, health-related quality-of-life, costs, and transition probabilities were based on published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess parameter uncertainty associated with the analysis. RESULTS: In treatment-naive patients, the expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for interferon-free regimens were higher for DCV + SOF (12.37) and SOF + RBV (12.48) compared to that of pINF + RBV (11.71) over a lifetime horizon, applying their clinical trial treatment durations. The expected costs were higher for DCV + SOF ($170,371) and SOF + RBV ($194,776) vs pINF + RBV regimen ($90,905). Compared to pINF + RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were $120,671 and $135,398 per QALYs for DCV + SOF and SOF + RBV, respectively. In treatment-experienced patients, DCV + SOF regimen dominated the SOF + RBV regimen. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 100% probability that a DCV + SOF regimen was cost saving in treatment-experienced patients. CONCLUSION: Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir is a safe and effective option for the treatment of chronic HCV genotype 3 patients. This regimen could be considered a cost-effective option following a first-line treatment of peg-interferon/ribavirin treatment experienced patients with HCV genotype-3 infection.

Reflections on an arranged marriage between bioinformatics and health informatics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the discussions of two workshops held during 2001 by two Canadian organisations, HEALNet, a Network of Centres of Excellence for research in health information applications, and Genome Canada, a national research funding agency for genomics and proteomics, in collaboration with the Institute of Genetics of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to examine strategic research development in Health Informatics and Bioinformatics respectively. METHODS: Invited workshops with structured debate. Concept analysis of preparative material and debates. RESULTS: A predominantly common set of concepts was discerned from both workshops. Analysis of published definitions showed an inability to distinguish a definition that would suggest that health informatics and bioinformatics are separate disciplines. In both workshops there was evidence of deep concerns of identity, the lack of clear structures to support research funding as well as uncertainty in distinguishing between service and research. CONCLUSIONS: Many deep issues currently inhibit the recognition and funding of research in health and bioinformatics in Canada and elsewhere. Some of these issues are common to both health and bioinformatics. The overlap in prevailing definitions, research concerns and methodological content in the respective domains suggest that common research needs should be better identified and reinforced for the benefit of both.