Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta®, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx®, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent®, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals. REVIEW METHODS: A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values. RESULTS: Four RCTs (n = 2618) and eight non-RCTs (n = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus. LIMITATIONS: Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS. CONCLUSIONS: The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.

BACKGROUND: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for hospitalization during pregnancy. While a previous Cochrane review examined interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, there has not yet been a review examining the interventions for the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety, of all interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum in pregnancy up to 20 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (20 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of any intervention for hyperemesis gravidarum. Quasi-randomized trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.We excluded trials on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that were not specifically studying the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. The comparisons covered a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various pharmaceutical interventions. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed. For selected important comparisons and outcomes, we graded the quality of the evidence and created 'Summary of findings' tables. For most outcomes the evidence was graded as low or very low quality mainly due to the imprecision of effect estimates. Comparisons included in the 'Summary of findings' tables are described below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo, There was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anxiodepressive symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.40; one study, 36 women, very low-quality evidence), spontaneous abortion (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; one study, 57 women, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.26; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence), or perinatal death (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.30; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.48, respectively; very low-quality evidence).In a study with 92 participants, women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.40, low-quality evidence) or side effects.A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively, very low-quality evidence). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.11, respectively; moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects.In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects.In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.39, very low-quality evidence), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) .Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94; four studies, 269 women). For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups (very low-quality evidence for all outcomes). In other single studies there were no clear differences between groups for preterm birth or side effects (very low-quality evidence).For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.28;one study, 40 women).In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.72; low-quality evidence), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.15, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this review, there is little high-quality and consistent evidence supporting any one intervention, which should be taken into account when making management decisions. There was also very limited reporting on the economic impact of hyperemesis gravidarum and the impact that interventions may have.The limitations in interpreting the results of the included studies highlights the importance of consistency in the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum, the use of validated outcome measures, and the need for larger placebo-controlled trials.