Dataset Information

Nivolumab provides improved effectiveness and safety compared with docetaxel as a second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As an inhibitor of programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, nivolumab has been shown to be effective in various cancers. We thus conducted this meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy of nivolumab vs docetaxel-based chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Relevant studies were identified through searches of databases and conference proceedings. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), drug responses, and adverse effects (AEs) were assessed as the primary endpoints.

Results

After screening, we included six studies (949 patients) in the final analysis. Nivolumab showed better efficacy in terms of the PFS (hazard ratios [HR]: 0.70, P = 0.03), OS (HR: 0.70, P < 0.00001), objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratios [RR]: 1.73, P = 0.0008), total AEs (RR: 0.77, P = 0.006), and grade 3-5 AEs (RR: 0.18, P < 0.00001) than docetaxel. The anti-tumor efficacy of nivolumab for NSCLC in terms of both PFS and OS was positively correlated with the level of PD-L1 expression. In the nivolumab treatment arm, the 10 most-reported AEs were fatigue (15.7%), nausea (10.8%), decreased appetite (10.3%), asthenia (9.8%), diarrhea (7.5%), rash (7.5%), arthralgia (5.4%), vomiting (4.4%), constipation (3.5%), and pyrexia (3.3%).

Conclusions

For advanced NSCLC, nivolumab is a better therapy in terms of both anti-tumor efficacy and safety than docetaxel-based chemotherapy. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

SUBMITTER: Xu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6382729 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nivolumab provides improved effectiveness and safety compared with docetaxel as a second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xu Zheng Z Yi Fengming F Yu Dongliang D Xu Jianjun J Wei Yiping Y Zhang Wenxiong W

Cancer medicine 20190109 2

<h4>Background</h4>As an inhibitor of programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, nivolumab has been shown to be effective in various cancers. We thus conducted this meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy of nivolumab vs docetaxel-based chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).<h4>Methods</h4>Relevant studies were identified through searches of databases and conference proceedings. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival ...[more]

PMID: 30628185

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: Domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab has emerged as a promising treatment for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of our study to evaluate whether tislelizumab is cost-effective as a second- or third-line treatment for this population compared with docetaxel (conventional chemotherapy) and nivolumab (imported PD-1inhibitor), from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: A Markov model with a 3-week Markov cycle and a 30-year time horizon was built to compare the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line tislelizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatment discontinuation event, were estimated from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local hospitals, public database and published literature. Results: Compared with docetaxel, tislelizumab provided an additional 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.37 vs. 1.04 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $9,286 ($23,646 vs. $14,360) for Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,959/QALY under the WTP threshold of $35,663/QALY used in the model. Compared with nivolumab, tislelizumab was associated with a lower cost ($23,646 vs. $59,447) and higher QALYs (1.37 vs. 1.20 QALYs), resulting in its dominance of nivolumab. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, domestic PD-1inhibitor tislelizumab immunotherapy represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with conventional docetaxel chemotherapy and imported PD-1inhibitor nivolumab immunotherapy in the treatment of driver-negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC beyond the first-line setting. In the era of "Universal Medical Insurance System", the rational use of domestic anticancer drugs guided by cost-benefit evidence would be an effective means to balance the limited expenditure of medical insurance fund and the growing demand for cancer treatments.

Project description:ObjectiveOur previous economic assessment found that nivolumab was not cost-effective for Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, when compared with the standard second-line drug docetaxel. However, a greater survival benefit with nivolumab was observed for patients with 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. In view of this, we designed the present analysis to explore whether it is cost-effective to use the PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment in China.Material and methodsA Markov model was established to project the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of three second-line treatment strategies: nivolumab and docetaxel (strategies without a PD-L1 test) and PD-L1 test-based strategy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our results. Additional price reduction and willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold scenario analyses were performed to explore the impact of economic and health policies with Chinese characteristics on our results.ResultsThe PD-L1 test-based strategy costs approximately CNY 194,607 (USD 28,210) or more and yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs compared to the docetaxel strategy without a PD-L1 test, equating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 731,089 (USD 105,978)/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the price of nivolumab was the strongest source of variation in the ICERs. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for the PD-L1 test-based strategy being cost-effective increases with the increase of WTP thresholds.ConclusionFrom the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, using a PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment was not cost-effective. The National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation on the price reduction of nivolumab was found to be the most effective action to improve its cost-effectiveness in China.

Project description:BackgroundApatinib is an oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2). Some clinical trials have demonstrated that apatinib is efficacious against advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.ObjectiveThis study aimed to probe efficacy and safety of apatinib plus docetaxel, as the second or above line treatment, in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.DesignMulticenter, prospective, single arm study.SettingThree teaching hospitals centers in the Sichuan.ParticipantsFourteen patients with stage IVA/B nonsquamous NSCLC had previously received at least 1 platinum-based chemotherapy regimen.InterventionPatients who were enrolled between November 2016 and January 2018 were given docetaxel (75 mg/m, i.v., d1) plus oral apatinib (250 mg/d), 4 weeks as one cycle, until disease progression or intolerance to adverse events (AE).Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints comprised objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and AE incidence rate.ResultsAll patients carried adenocarcinoma by pathological type. The median follow-up duration was 9.76 months. Out of 14 cases, 12 were evaluable, showing ORR of 33.33%, DCR of 66.67%, DCR of 50% in cases with brain metastasis, median PFS of 2.92 months (95% CI: 1.38-4.48), and 6-month OS of 80%. Primary AEs encompassed: leukopenia in 7 cases (58.33%), hand-foot skin reaction in 5 cases (41.67%), and diarrhea in 4 cases (33.33%). Among them, grade 3 AEs were: leukopenia in 4 cases (33.33%), and hand-foot skin reaction in 1 case (8.33%). No grade 4/5 AEs were reported. Univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted respectively for PFS and OS. These factors encompassed: gender, age, gene mutations, clinical stage, ECOG scores, quantity of metastatic foci, brain metastasis, and hand-foot skin reaction. Results demonstrated zero risk factors for PFS or OS.ConclusionApatinib plus docetaxel, as the second or above line treatment, is effective and safe against advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, with good tolerance profile.Trial registrationNCT03416231.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:The economic assessment of immuno-oncology agents in Chinese patients is limited despite a need for new therapies. Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China, and it significantly prolongs overall survival. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab, it is urgent to assess its value in China in terms of both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line setting for NSCLC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS:A Markov model consisting of three health states, was designed to evaluate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients. Clinical data was derived from the CheckMate 078 phase III clinical trial, which included 504 patients predominantly from China. Parametric survival models to fit and extrapolate survival data were chosen based on clinical rationality, visual fit and statistical goodness-of-fit. Lifetime costs and health outcomes were calculated, and US$28,899 and $63,564 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were selected as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values for general regions and affluent regions, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the model. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS:In base case analysis, Nivolumab yielded an additional 0.24 QALYs, at a cost of $93,307 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the results to be most sensitive to the price of nivolumab per kg (mean $60.00; range $26.00-$60.00) and the mean patient weight (65 kg, range 52-78 kg). Utility values in progression-free survival state (mean 0.804; range 0.643-0.965) and overall survival hazard ratio (0.68; 97.7% CI 0.52-0.90) had moderate impact on the model results. Subgroup analyses indicated that nivolumab was most cost-effective for patients who were 65 years of age or older ($85,171/QALY), followed by female patients ($85,273/QALY) and patients with tumor PD-L1 expression at least 1% ($90,309/QALY). CONCLUSIONS:Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC in China. Ensuring that nivolumab is included in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) may be a valid mean of meeting extensive treatment demands in China.

Project description:Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were -0.15 QALYs and -$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.

Project description:Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity.In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival.Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (?1%, ?5%, and ?10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group.Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867.).

Dataset Information

Nivolumab provides improved effectiveness and safety compared with docetaxel as a second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Nivolumab provides improved effectiveness and safety compared with docetaxel as a second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets