A review and validation of overall survival extrapolation in health technology assessments of cancer immunotherapy by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: how did the initial best estimate compare to trial data subsequently made available?

BACKGROUND: Validation of overall survival (OS) extrapolations of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) during the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Assessment (STA) process is limited due to data still maturing at the time of submission. Inaccurate extrapolation may lead to inappropriate decision-making. The availability of more mature trial data facilitates a retrospective analysis of the plausibility and validity of initial extrapolations. This study compares these extrapolations to subsequently available longer-term data. METHODS: A systematic search of completed NICE appraisals of ICIs from March 2000 to December 2017 was performed. A targeted search was also undertaken to procure published OS data from the pivotal clinical trials for each identified STA made available post-submission to NICE. Initial Kaplan-Meier curves and associated extrapolations from NICE documentation were extracted to compare the accuracy of OS projections versus the most mature data. RESULTS: The review identified 11 STAs, of which 10 provided OS data upon submission to NICE. The extrapolations undertaken considered parametric or piecewise survival models. Additional data cut-offs provided a mean of 18 months of OS beyond the end of the original data. Initial extrapolations typically under-estimated OS from the most mature data cut-off by 0.4-2.7%, depending on the choice of assessment method and use of the manufacturer- or ERG-preferred extrapolation. CONCLUSION: Long-term extrapolation of OS is required for NICE STAs based on initial immature OS data. The results of this study demonstrate that the initial OS extrapolations employed by manufacturers and ERGs generally predicted OS reasonably well when compared to more mature data (when available), although on average they appeared to underestimate OS. This review and validation shows that, while the choice of OS extrapolation is uncertain, the methods adopted are generally aligned with later-published follow-up data and appear appropriate for informing HTA decisions.

Observational study of ezetimibe discontinuation in primary care practices in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the circumstances of ezetimibe discontinuation as its prescribing had been discouraged in some publications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults on stable lipid-modifying therapy (LMT) including ezetimibe, who then had >8 weeks cessation in their prescribed ezetimibe regimen (2010-2011) were identified from THIN UK primary care database. Lipid values and parallel changes to other LMT were described overall and in a sub-group with a history of diabetes, cardiovascular disease or familial hypercholesterolaemia (high-risk group). RESULTS: Ezetimibe therapy stopped in 7087 patients after a mean of 38 months; 67.0% were in the high-risk group. No lipid readings were recorded for 16.1% of patients in the year before and 26.2% in the year after ezetimibe stopped; 11.0% and 12.4% in the high-risk group respectively. In the prior year, 60.2% patients with any lipid reading had a total cholesterol (T-cholesterol) <5 mmol/l and 59.2% had a T-cholesterol <5 mmol/l and LDL-cholesterol <3 mmol/l. In the high-risk group, 66.8% had a T-cholesterol <5 mmol/l, 38.9% had either a T-cholesterol <4 or a LDL-cholesterol <2 mmol/l and 29.4% had reached both targets. In both populations, 42% patients had 6 months' follow-up after ezetimibe stopped with no change to other LMT. An LMT change within 8 weeks (19%) was usually a new statin while 27% overall had a further ezetimibe prescription after 8-26 weeks. LIMITATIONS: Only absolute lipid values were included, as percentage change from baseline level may not be reliable. The study included a larger proportion of patients in Scotland relative to the UK population. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed ezetimibe often stopped without either a recent lipid value or attainment of optimal, or sometimes minimum, lipid targets. Patients did not always receive parallel intensification of other LMT or a further ezetimibe prescription within 6 months.

Metastatic renal cell cancer treatments: an indirect comparison meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has advanced dramatically with understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease. New treatment options may provide improved progression-free survival (PFS). We aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of new therapies in this field. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches of 11 electronic databases from inception to April 2008. We included randomized trials (RCTs) that evaluated bevacizumab, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Two reviewers independently extracted data, in duplicate. Our primary outcome was investigator-assessed PFS. We performed random-effects meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison analysis. RESULTS: We included 3 bevacizumab (2 of bevacizumab plus interferon-a [IFN-a]), 2 sorafenib, 1 sunitinib, and 1 temsirolimus trials (total n = 3,957). All interventions offer advantages for PFS. Using indirect comparisons with interferon-alpha as the common comparator, we found that sunitinib was superior to both sorafenib (HR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.38-0.86, P = < 0.001) and bevacizumab + IFN-a (HR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.60-0.93, P = 0.001). Sorafenib was not statistically different from bevacizumab +IFN-a in this same indirect comparison analysis (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.52-1.13, P = 0.23). Using placebo as the similar comparator, we were unable to display a significant difference between sorafenib and bevacizumab alone (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.58-1.12, P = 0.23). Temsirolimus provided significant PFS in patients with poor prognosis (HR 0.69, 95% CI, 0.57-0.85). CONCLUSION: New interventions for mRCC offer a favourable PFS for mRCC compared to interferon-alpha and placebo.