Efficacy of Mobocertinib and Amivantamab in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR Exon 20 Insertions Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: An Indirect Treatment Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Exon 20 insertions (ex20ins) mutations of the EGFR gene account for 1% to 2% of all non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Targeted therapies have been developed to treat this cancer type but have not been studied in head-to-head trials. Our objective was to use a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to assess the efficacy of mobocertinib and amivantamab in patients with NSCLC EGFR ex20ins mutations who were previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An unanchored MAIC was conducted to estimate the treatment effects of mobocertinib and amivantamab using individual-level data from the mobocertinib phase I/II single-arm trial (NCT02716116) and published data from the amivantamab single-arm CHRYSALIS trial (NCT02609776). Confirmed overall response rate (cORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DoR) were assessed. RESULTS: Both trials were comparable in terms of study population, study design, and outcome definitions and included 114 patients who received mobocertinib and 114 patients who received amivantamab. After MAIC weighting, all reported baseline characteristics were balanced between mobocertinib and amivantamab. The weighted odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] comparing mobocertinib to amivantamab was 0.56 (0.30-1.04) for independent review committee (IRC)-assessed cORR and 0.98 (0.53-1.82) for investigator (INV)-assessed cORR. The weighted hazard ratio (HR) comparing mobocertinib to amivantamab was 0.74 (0.51-1.07) for IRC-assessed PFS, 0.92 (0.57-1.48) for OS, and 0.59 (0.30-1.18) for INV-assessed DoR. CONCLUSION: MAIC analysis showed that mobocertinib and amivantamab had similar efficacy in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR ex20ins mutations whose disease progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. These findings may benefit patients by supporting future treatment options.

Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety.

Introduction: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors regorafenib and cabozantinib remain the mainstay in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is currently no clear evidence of superiority in efficacy or safety to guide choice between the two treatments. Methods: We conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison using individual patient data from the RESORCE trial of regorafenib and published aggregate data from the CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib. Second-line HCC patients with prior sorafenib exposure of ≥3 months were included in the analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated to quantify differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes compared were rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), occurring in >10% of patients, and discontinuation or dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs. Results: After matching adjustment for differences in baseline patient characteristics, regorafenib showed a favorable OS (HR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.20) and ∼3-month-longer RMST over cabozantinib (RMST difference, 2.76 months; 95% CI: -1.03, 6.54), although not statistically significant. For PFS, there was no numerical difference in HR (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.49) and no clinically meaningful difference based on RMST analyses (RMST difference, -0.59 months; 95% CI: -1.83, 0.65). Regorafenib showed a significantly lower incidence of discontinuation (risk difference, -9.2%; 95% CI: -17.7%, -0.6%) and dose reductions (-15.2%; 95% CI: -29.0%, -1.5%) due to treatment-related AEs (any grade). Regorafenib was also associated with a lower incidence (not statistically significant) of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (risk difference, -7.1%; 95% CI: -14.7%, 0.4%) and fatigue (-6.3%; 95% CI: -14.6%, 2.0%). Conclusion: This indirect treatment comparison suggests, relative to cabozantinib, that regorafenib could be associated with favorable OS (not statistically significant), lower rates of dose reductions and discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs, and lower rates of severe diarrhea and fatigue.

Indirect comparison of mobocertinib and real-world therapies for pre-treated non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

OBJECTIVES: Mobocertinib, a novel oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is available for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR exon 20 insertion (ex20ins) mutations after platinum chemotherapy. We performed an indirect comparison of clinical trial data and real-world data (RWD) to determine the relative efficacy of mobocertinib vs. other treatments for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on the efficacy of mobocertinib from a phase I/II trial (NCT02716116) were compared to RWD from a retrospective study in 12 German centers using inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, smoking status, presence of brain metastasis, time from advanced diagnosis, and histology. Tumor response assessment was based on RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: The analysis included 114 patients in the mobocertinib group and 43 in the RWD group. The confirmed overall response rate (cORR) according to investigator assessment was 0% for standard treatments and 35.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.4-44.6) for mobocertinib (p < 0.0001). Compared to standard regimens in the weighted population, mobocertinib prolonged overall survival (OS, median [95% CI] = 9.8 [4.3-13.7] vs. 20.2 [14.9-25.3] months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42 [0.25-0.69], p = 0.0035), progression-free survival (PFS, median [95% CI] = 2.6 [1.5-5.7] vs. 7.3 [5.6-8.8] months; HR = 0.28 [0.18-0.44], p < 0.0001), and time to treatment discontinuation (median [95% CI] = 2.1 [1.2-3.1] vs. 7.4 [6.4-8.5] months; HR = 0.34 [0.18-0.65], p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: Mobocertinib was associated with an improved cORR and prolonged PFS and OS compared to standard treatments for patients with EGFR ex20ins-positive NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel Versus Axicabtagene Ciloleucel and Tisagenlecleucel in the Third-Line or Later Treatment Setting for Relapsed or Refractory Large B-cell Lymphoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus other available chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), in patients who had received at least two prior therapies from a United States (US) commercial third-party payer perspective. METHODS: To capture this heterogeneity in survival outcomes, we used mixture cure models to extrapolate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient-level data from TRANSCEND NHL 001 for liso-cel and reconstructed patient-level data from ZUMA-1 for axi-cel, JULIET for tisa-cel, and SCHOLAR-1 for salvage chemotherapy, derived using the Guyot method, were used for OS and PFS. The model included adverse events associated with liso-cel, axi-cel, and tisa-cel. RESULTS: Liso-cel was less costly (incremental cost of - $74,980) and marginally more effective (0.002 incremental quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]) than axi-cel and had an incremental cost of $67,925 and 2.02 incremental QALYs over tisa-cel in the base case. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with the liso-cel OS cure fraction being the main driver of cost-effectiveness compared with both axi-cel and tisa-cel. CONCLUSION: This analysis estimated that liso-cel is cost-effective compared with tisa-cel and axi-cel from a commercial US payer perspective.

Modeling long-term health and economic implications of new treatment strategies for Parkinson's disease: an individual patient simulation study.

Background: Simulation modeling facilitates the estimation of long-term health and economic outcomes to inform healthcare decision-making. Objective: To develop a framework to simulate progression of Parkinson's disease (PD), capturing motor and non-motor symptoms, clinical outcomes, and associated costs over a lifetime. Methods: A patient-level simulation was implemented accounting for individual variability and interrelated changes in common disease progression scales. Predictive equations were developed to model progression for newly diagnosed patients and were combined with additional sources to inform long-term progression. Analyses compared a hypothetical disease-modifying therapy (DMT) with a standard of care to explore the drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results: The equations captured the dependence between the various measures, leveraging prior values and rates of change to obtain realistic predictions. The simulation was built upon several interrelated equations, validated by comparison with observed values for the Movement Disorder Society Unified PD Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) and UPDRS subscales over time. In a case study, disease progression rates, patient utilities, and direct non-medical costs were drivers of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: The developed equations supported the simulation of early PD. This model can support conducting simulations to inform internal decision-making, trial design, and strategic planning early in the development of new DMTs entering clinical trials.

Front-line daratumumab-VTd versus standard-of-care in ASCT-eligible multiple myeloma: matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Aim: To compare daratumumab plus standard-of-care (SoC; bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone [VTd]) and VTd alone with other SoC for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients & methods: We conducted an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison of progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) with D-VTd/VTd versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd), bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (VCd) and bortezomib/dexamethasone (Vd). Results: After matching adjustment, significant improvements in PFS were estimated for D-VTd versus VRd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.33-0.69]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.21-0.58]) and Vd (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28-0.63]). OS was significantly longer with D-VTd versus VRd (HR: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.16-0.57]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.14-0.86]) and Vd (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.18-0.77]). No significant PFS/OS differences were seen for VTd versus other SoC. Conclusion: This analysis supports front-line daratumumab for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Survival Analysis in Patients with Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma Treated with Avelumab.

INTRODUCTION: Complex underlying risk functions associated with immuno-oncology treatments have led to exploration of different methods (parametric survival, spline, landmark, and cure-fraction models) to estimate long-term survival outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine differences in estimated short- and long-term survival in previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) patients receiving avelumab, when using alternative extrapolation approaches. METHODS: Efficacy data from the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (part A) with at least 12 months of follow-up were analyzed. Standard parametric survival analyses and analyses of overall survival (OS) as a function of surrogate outcomes comprised of response (landmark analyses) and progression-free survival plus post-progression survival (PFS + PPS) were used to project OS. Overall survival throughout lifetime was projected and compared with the observed OS data with at least 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Estimated OS from all three approaches provided a good fit to the observed OS curve from at least 12 months of follow-up. However, performance compared with OS data from at least 24 months showed that the landmark approach followed by PFS + PPS provided a better fit to the data as compared to standard parametric analysis. Mean life expectancy estimated with avelumab was 2.48 years with best-fitting parametric function (a log-normal distribution), 3.15 years with the landmark approach, and 3.54 years with PFS + PPS. CONCLUSION: Although standard parametric survival analysis may provide a good fit to short-term survival, it appears to underestimate the long-term survival benefits associated with avelumab in mMCC. Extrapolations based on surrogate outcomes of response or progression predict OS outcomes from longer follow-up better and appear to provide more clinically plausible projections. FUNDING: EMD Serono Inc, Rockland, MA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Versus Blinatumomab for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: No head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies. METHODS: Patient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses. RESULTS: Analyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina. CONCLUSION: Results from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article.

Comparative efficacy of brigatinib versus ceritinib and alectinib in patients with crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Brigatinib, ceritinib, and alectinib are approved to treat crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but no trial has compared them head-to-head. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to estimate the relative efficacy of these agents in the crizotinib-refractory setting. METHODS: MAIC is a propensity score-type method that adjusts for differences in baseline characteristics between trials to estimate relative efficacy. Analyses were based on patient-level data from the ALTA trial for brigatinib and published summary-level trial data from ASCEND-1 and ASCEND-2 for ceritinib and NP28761 and NP28673 for alectinib. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared. RESULTS: After matching, all key baseline characteristics were balanced between trials. Compared with ceritinib, brigatinib was associated with longer PFS (ASCEND-1: median 15.7 vs 6.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval] = 0.38 [0.26-0.57]; ASCEND-2: median = 18.3 vs 7.2 months, HR = 0.33 [0.20-0.56]) and OS (ASCEND-1: not available; ASCEND-2: median 27.6 vs 14.9 months, HR = 0.33 [0.17-0.63]). Versus alectinib, brigatinib was associated with longer PFS (NP28761: median = 17.6 vs 8.2 months, HR = 0.56 [0.36-0.86]; NP28673: median = 17.6 vs 8.9 months, HR = 0.61 [0.40-0.93]); results for OS were inconclusive (NP28761: median = 27.6 vs 22.7 months, HR = 0.70 [0.42-1.16]; NP28673: median = 27.6 vs 26.0 months, HR = 0.66 [0.39-1.09]). ORR was similar. CONCLUSION: In crizotinib-refractory ALK + NSCLC patients, relative efficacy estimates suggest brigatinib may have prolonged PFS and OS vs ceritinib and prolonged PFS vs alectinib.

Medical resource utilization of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy in metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer: Results from LATITUDE.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA+P), when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival and disease progression over dual placebos added to ADT in the LATITUDE clinical trial (NCT01715285). The objective of this study was to assess event-driven medical resource utilization (MRU) of ADT plus AA+P (ADT+AA+P) versus ADT plus dual placebos (ADT+placebos) in LATITUDE. METHODS: Event-driven MRU data from LATITUDE while patients were on treatment were used for analyses. Types of MRU included overnight hospitalizations and length of stay (LOS), emergency room (ER) visits, radiotherapy, surgery, imaging, and specialist and general practitioner (GP) visits. Rates by treatment (per 100 person-years) and rate ratios comparing ADT+AA+P with ADT+placebos were estimated with zero-inflated Poisson regression. The difference in the average hospital LOS between arms was assessed with repeated measures regression analyses. Reasons for hospitalization were explored. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: A total of 1199 patients were enrolled in LATITUDE. Significantly lower rates of hospitalization (a 24% reduction), imaging (a 36% reduction), and radiotherapy (a 50% reduction) were observed with ADT+AA+P versus ADT+placebos. There was a nonsignificant trend of lower rates of specialist visits and surgery. The rates of ER and GP visits and the average LOS per hospitalization episode were similar across arms. The most common hospitalization reasons were genitourinary, musculoskeletal, and respiratory tract symptoms/disorders. The results remained consistent in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adding AA+P to ADT does not increase MRU and leads to lower rates of hospitalization, imaging, and radiotherapy. This likely reflects the more favorable clinical outcomes with ADT+AA+P therapy.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, or everolimus in the treatment of prior sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing axitinib with cabozantinib or everolimus, the aim of this study was to conduct an indirect comparison of their relative efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), using data from the AXIS and METEOR trials. METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in prior sunitinib-treated patients with mRCC were compared by conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analyses, including base-case and sensitivity analyses. Individual patient-level data from prior sunitinib-treated patients who received axitinib in AXIS were weighted to match published baseline characteristics of prior sunitinib-treated patients who received either cabozantinib or everolimus in METEOR. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] = 1.15 [CI: 0.82-1.63]) and OS (aHR = 1.00 [CI: 0.69-1.46]) between axitinib versus cabozantinib in the base-case analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS (aHR = 1.39 [CI: 1.00-1.92]) and OS (aHR = 1.35 [CI: 0.95-1.92]) were shorter for axitinib compared with cabozantinib; however, the OS difference was not statistically significant. Axitinib was associated with significantly longer PFS compared with everolimus in the base-case (aHR = 0.53 [CI: 0.36-0.80]) and sensitivity analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.45-0.88]), respectively. Results suggested an OS benefit for axitinib versus everolimus in base-case analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.42-0.96]); however, the difference in OS in the sensitivity analysis was not statistically significant (aHR = 0.84 [CI: 0.59-1.18]). CONCLUSIONS: MAIC analyses suggest PFS and OS for axitinib and cabozantinib are dependent on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition used; in the base-case analysis, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS between axitinib and cabozantinib. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS in favour of cabozantinib was significant; however, the trend for prolonged OS with cabozantinib was not significant. For axitinib and everolimus, MAIC analyses indicate patients treated with axitinib may have an improved PFS and OS benefit when compared to everolimus. Disparities between the base-case and sensitivity analyses in this study underscore the importance of adjusting for the differences in baseline characteristics and that naïve indirect comparisons are not appropriate.

Modeling Clinical Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Application and Validation of the Discrete Event Simulation Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment landscape in prostate cancer has changed dramatically with the emergence of new medicines in the past few years. The traditional survival partition model (SPM) cannot accurately predict long-term clinical outcomes because it is limited by its ability to capture the key consequences associated with this changing treatment paradigm. The objective of this study was to introduce and validate a discrete-event simulation (DES) model for prostate cancer. METHODS: A DES model was developed to simulate overall survival (OS) and other clinical outcomes based on patient characteristics, treatment received, and disease progression history. We tested and validated this model with clinical trial data from the abiraterone acetate phase III trial (COU-AA-302). The model was constructed with interim data (55% death) and validated with the final data (96% death). Predicted OS values were also compared with those from the SPM. RESULTS: The DES model's predicted time to chemotherapy and OS are highly consistent with the final observed data. The model accurately predicts the OS hazard ratio from the final data cut (predicted: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.85 and final actual: 0.74; 95% CI 0.6-0.88). The log-rank test to compare the observed and predicted OS curves indicated no statistically significant difference between observed and predicted curves. However, the predictions from the SPM based on interim data deviated significantly from the final data. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that a DES model with properly developed risk equations presents considerable improvements to the more traditional SPM in flexibility and predictive accuracy of long-term outcomes.

Assessing the impact of multiple sclerosis disease activity and daclizumab HYP treatment on patient-reported outcomes: Results from the SELECT trial.

BACKGROUND: The SELECT study demonstrated superior effects of daclizumab high-yield process (DAC HYP) to placebo in key endpoints in patients with relapsing and remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of DAC HYP and disease activity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using data from this study. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed at baseline, 12, 24, and 52 weeks using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29), the 12-items Short Form Health Survey, and the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions. An analysis of covariance model was used to compare treatment difference in change from baseline. Mixed-effects models were used to assess the impact of disability progression, relapse, treatment, and interaction between treatment and these events on HRQoL outcome. RESULTS: DAC HYP 150mg resulted in significant positive impacts on HRQoL compared to placebo. It was also found to significantly reduce the adverse impact of relapse on the MSIS-29 physical scale (-12.45; p=0.0006). Relapse and disability progression were significantly associated with impaired HRQoL. CONCLUSION: DAC HYP 150mg improved HRQoL in patients with RRMS compared to placebo. The treatment benefit can be partially attributed to reduction in disease activity and attenuation of the adverse impact of relapse on HRQoL.

Cost-utility analysis of memantine extended release added to cholinesterase inhibitors compared to cholinesterase inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of moderate-to-severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type in the US.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of memantine extended release (ER) as an add-on therapy to acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) [combination therapy] for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) from both a healthcare payer and a societal perspective over 3 years when compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US. METHODS: A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of memantine ER for treatment of AD patients taking an AChEI. The analysis assessed the long-term costs and health outcomes using an individual patient simulation in which AD progression is modeled in terms of cognition, behavior, and functioning changes. Input parameters are based on patient-level trial data, published literature, and publicly available data sources. Changes in anti-psychotic medication use are incorporated based on a published retrospective cohort study. Costs include drug acquisition and monitoring, total AD-related medical care, and informal care associated with caregiver time. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), life years, care time for caregiver, time in community and institution, time on anti-psychotics, time by disease severity, and time without severe symptoms are reported. Costs and health outcomes are discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Considering a societal perspective over 3 years, this analysis shows that memantine ER combined with an AChEI provides better clinical outcomes and lower costs than AChEI monotherapy. Discounted average savings were estimated at $18,355 and $20,947 per patient and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by an average of 0.12 and 0.13 from a societal and healthcare payer perspective, respectively. Patients on combination therapy spent an average of 4 months longer living at home and spend less time in moderate-severe and severe stages of the disease. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AD is a cost-effective treatment compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US.

Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments.

Estimates of the relative effects of competing treatments are rarely available from head-to-head trials. These effects must therefore be derived from indirect comparisons of results from different studies. The feasibility of comparisons relies on the network linking treatments through common comparators; the reliability of these may also be impacted when the studies are heterogeneous or when multiple intermediate comparisons are needed to link two specific treatments of interest. Simulated treatment comparison and matching-adjusted indirect comparison have been developed to address these challenges. These focus on comparisons of outcomes for two specific treatments of interest by using patient-level data for one treatment (the index) and published results for the other treatment (the comparator) from compatible studies, taking into account possible confounding due to population differences. This paper provides an overview of how and when these approaches can be used as an alternative or to complement standard MTC approaches.

Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials.

Trials of new oncology treatments often involve a crossover element in their design that allows patients receiving the control treatment to crossover to receive the experimental treatment at disease progression or when sufficient evidence about the efficacy of the new treatment is achieved. Crossover leads to contamination of the initial randomized groups due to a mixing of the effects of the control and experimental treatments in the reference group. This is further complicated by the fact that crossover is often a very selective process whereby patients who switch treatment have a different prognosis than those who do not. Standard statistical techniques, including those that attempt to account for the treatment switch, cannot fully adjust for the bias introduced by crossover. Specialized methods such as rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) models and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses are designed to deal with selective treatment switching and have been increasingly applied to adjust for crossover. We provide an overview of the crossover problem and highlight circumstances under which it is likely to cause bias. We then describe the RPSFT and IPCW methods and explain how these methods adjust for the bias, highlighting the assumptions invoked in the process. Our aim is to facilitate understanding of these complex methods using a case study to support explanations. We also discuss the implications of crossover adjustment on cost-effectiveness results.

Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to EQ-5D in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are often collected using disease-specific patient questionnaires while generic, patient-level utility data required for health economic modeling are often not collected. METHODS: We developed a mapping algorithm for multiple myeloma that relates HRQoL scores from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to a utility value from the European QoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Data were obtained from 154 multiple myeloma patients who had participated in a multicenter cohort study in the UK or Germany. All three questionnaires were administered at a single time point. Scores from all 19 domains of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 instruments were univariately tested against EQ-5D values and retained in a multivariate regression model if statistically significant. A 10-fold cross-validation model selection method was also used as an alternative testing means. Two models were developed: one based on QLQ-C30 plus QLQ-MY20 scores and one based on QLQ-C30 scores alone. Adjusted R-squared, correlation coefficients, and plots of observed versus predicted EQ-5D values were presented for both models. RESULTS: Mapping revealed that Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, Pain, and Insomnia were significant predictors of EQ-5D utility values. Similar results were observed when QLQ-MY20 scores were excluded from the model, except that Emotional Functioning and became a significant predictor and Insomnia was no longer a significant predictor. Adjusted R-squared values were of similar magnitude with or without inclusion of QLQ-MY20 scores (0.70 and 0.69, respectively), suggesting that the EORTC QLQ-MY20 adds little in terms of predicting utility values in multiple myeloma. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm successfully mapped EORTC HRQoL data onto EQ-5D utility in patients with multiple myeloma. Current mapping will aid in the analysis of cost-effectiveness of novel therapies for this indication.

Effect of general symptom level, specific adverse events, treatment patterns, and patient characteristics on health-related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma: results of a European, multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Novel multiple myeloma (MM) therapies have increased patient longevity but are often associated with notable symptom burden. This study quantified the effect of general symptom level, specific symptoms, and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) on MM patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) generic cancer questionnaire (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) and MM-specific questionnaire (QLQ-MY20) were used in this study to assess patients' HRQoL. Data were collected on sociodemographics, disease and treatment history, and the presence/severity of MM-related symptoms or treatment-related AEs from patients with MM in UK and German centers. Multiple regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 154 patients (63 % male; mean age, 66.4 years; mean time since diagnosis, 3.7 years; 52 % currently on treatment; and 43 % with ≥ 1 prior MM therapy), 25, 32, 31, and 11 % were severely symptomatic, moderately symptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and asymptomatic, respectively. Fatigue (59 %), bone pain (51 %), sleepiness (36 %), hypoesthesia or paresthesia (33 %), and muscle cramps (31 %) were most commonly reported. Moderate and severe general symptom levels, bone symptoms, depression, and mental status changes were identified as strong determinants of HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Severity, type of disease symptoms, and treatment related AEs are important HRQoL determinants in patients with MM, allowing for targeted treatment.