Dataset Information

Real-world comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:For novel cancer treatments, effectiveness in clinical practice is not always aligned with clinical efficacy results. As such it is important to understand a treatment's real-world effectiveness. We examined real-world population-based comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments (chemotherapy or targeted treatments). METHODS:We used a cohort of melanoma patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced disease since April 2005 from Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified from provincial drug databases and the Ontario Cancer Registry who received second-line ipilimumab from 2012 to 2015 (treated) or second-line non-ipilimumab treatment prior to 2012 (historical controls). Historical controls were chosen, to permit the most direct comparison to pivotal trial findings. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to identify baseline characteristics and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall survival (OS). Observed potential confounders were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS:We identified 329 patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) who had received second-line treatments (189 treated; 140 controls). Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab were older (61.7?years vs 55.2?years) compared to historical controls. Median OS were 6.9 (95% CI: 5.4-8.3) and 4.95 (4.3-6.0) months for ipilimumab and controls, respectively. The crude 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS probabilities were 34.3% (27-41%), 20.6% (15-27%), and 15.2% (9.6-21%) for ipilimumab and 17.1% (11-23%), 7.1% (2.9-11%), and 4.7% (1.2-8.2%) for controls. Ipilimumab was associated with improved OS (IPTW HR?=?0.62; 95% CI: 0.49-0.78; p?

SUBMITTER: Dai WF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7158109 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-world comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

Dai Wei Fang WF Beca Jaclyn M JM Croxford Ruth R Isaranawatchai Wanrudee W Menjak Ines B IB Petrella Teresa M TM Mittmann Nicole N Earle Craig C CC Gavura Scott S Hanna Timothy P TP Chan Kelvin K W KKW

BMC cancer 20200415 1

<h4>Background</h4>For novel cancer treatments, effectiveness in clinical practice is not always aligned with clinical efficacy results. As such it is important to understand a treatment's real-world effectiveness. We examined real-world population-based comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments (chemotherapy or targeted treatments).<h4>Methods</h4>We used a cohort of melanoma patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced disease since April 2005 f ...[more]

PMID: 32293341

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Australian Government subsidisation of ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma was conditional on the sponsor entering a 'managed entry scheme' to assess the 2-year overall survival rate in metastatic melanoma patients who received ipilimumab in the first year of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listing. Methods:All unresectable stage IIIc / IV metastatic melanoma patients treated with at least one dose of ipilimumab therapy in Australia from the PBS listing date to a time point 12 months later (i.e. from 1-Aug-2013 to 31-Jul-2014) were invited to participate. Overall survival at 2 years post treatment initiation was measured, with Cox regression analysis used to examine the relationship between survival and patient baseline characteristics. Results:The evaluable population (910 patients) was on average 63.3 years old, male (70.1%) and treated in a public hospital (64.4%) in an urban area (76.5%). The majority of patients were treatment naïve (63.3%), did not have brain metastases (71.1%), and were classified as ECOG performance status 0 or 1 (90.4%). The 2 year overall survival rate was conservatively calculated to be at least 23.9% and potentially as high as 34.2%. A significant difference in overall survival at 2 years was demonstrated across the categories of ECOG performance status (p?<?0.0001), M-status (p?=?0.0005) and treatment status (p?=?0.0114). No statistical difference in survival rate was observed when examining brain metastases vs no brain metastases (p?=?0.2622), treatment at private vs public hospitals (p?=?0.7601) nor treatment in the urban vs rural setting (p?=?0.5048). Conclusions:The 2 year overall survival rate for all patients receiving PBS subsidised ipilimumab in Australia from the first year Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme cohort is estimated to be between 23.9% and 34.2%, which is higher than the 23.5% observed in the key ipilimumab registrational trial. Results and learnings from the ipilimumab 'managed entry scheme' illustrate that early access with the promise of future evidence to confirm a medicine's cost-effectiveness can work, but needs to be carefully considered, constructed and managed.

Project description:ObjectiveThe optimal sequencing of targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is unknown. Observational studies with a variety of designs have reported differing results. The objective of this study is to systematically summarize and interpret the published real-world evidence comparing sequential treatment for mRCC.MethodsA search was conducted in Medline and Embase (2009-2013), and conference proceedings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (ASCO-GU), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (2011-2013). We systematically reviewed observational studies comparing second-line mRCC treatment with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) versus vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Studies were evaluated for 1) use of a retrospective cohort design after initiation of second-line therapy, 2) adjustment for patient characteristics, and 3) use of data from multiple centers. Meta-analyses were conducted for comparisons of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsTen studies reported OS and exhibited significant heterogeneity in estimated second-line treatment effects (I2 = 68%; P = 0.001). Four of these were adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies, and these showed no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.61) and a significant association between second-line mTORi (>75% everolimus) and longer OS compared to VEGF TKI (>60% sorafenib) (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.98) in a meta-analysis. Seven studies comparing PFS showed significant heterogeneity overall and among the adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies. Real-world observational data for axitinib outcomes was limited at the time of this study.ConclusionsReal-world studies employed different designs and reported heterogeneous results comparing the effectiveness of second-line mTORi and VEGF TKI in the treatment of mRCC. Within the subset of adjusted, multicenter observational studies, second-line use of mTORi was associated with significantly prolonged survival compared with second-line use of VEGF TKI.

Project description:BackgroundIpilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies.MethodsIMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.ResultsAmong 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti-programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab-treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab-treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts.ConclusionsWith long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913.

Project description:IntroductionMetastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) is a common cancer with poor survival outcomes. Although treatment options are limited, real-world treatment patterns and outcomes are not well understood, particularly beyond first-line treatment. This study described real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for mPDAC in the USA.MethodsThis retrospective analysis used electronic health record-derived de-identified data of patients with mPDAC diagnosed between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2021. Treatments were classified into six groups: (1) standard combination chemotherapy; (2) nonstandard combination chemotherapy; (3) single-agent chemotherapy; (4) targeted therapy; (5) clinical study drugs; and (6) off-label therapies. Analyses were descriptive in nature. Treatment utilization and switching, and time on treatment and time to discontinuation, were described by first-line (1LOT) and second-line (2LOT) treatment groups. Median overall survival (mOS) from 1LOT and 2LOT was stratified by treatment group, and for 1LOT on the basis of whether patients received further treatment.Results1LOT included 6979 patients, 3241 (46%) of whom received further 2LOT. Standard combination chemotherapy was the most common 1LOT (70%) and 2LOT (46%). Nonstandard combination chemotherapy was used more as 2LOT (35%) than 1LOT (11%). First-line time on treatment was generally higher than second-line time on treatment, and time to discontinuation was lower than time on treatment. mOS in days (months) from 1LOT was 271 (8.9), 252 (8.3), 219 (7.2), 170 (5.6), 280 (9.2), and 182 (6.0), and mOS from 2LOT was 202 (6.6), 193 (6.3), 186 (6.1), 193 (6.3), 179 (5.9), and 97 (3.2), for groups 1-6, respectively. Within group 1, mOS from 1LOT was 318 days (10.4 months) for FOLFIRINOX and 241 days (7.9 months) for gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel.ConclusionMost patients with mPDAC received 1LOT in line with clinical practice guidelines, yet mOS remains poor. This study highlights the need for novel therapies to demonstrate improved patient survival compared with therapies in current clinical practice guidelines.

Project description:The approval of new immunotherapies has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma. These survival gains come with trade-offs in side effects and costs, as well as important considerations for third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients.To develop a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination as firstline therapy in metastatic melanoma, while accounting for differential effectiveness in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive and negative patients.A 3-state Markov model (PD-L1 positive stable disease, PD-L1 negative stable disease, and progression and/or death) was developed using a U.S. societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon of 14.5 years. Transition probabilities were calculated from progression-free (PF) survival data reported in the CheckMate-067 trial. Costs were expressed in 2015 U.S. dollars and were determined using national sources. Adverse event (AE) management was determined using immune-related AE (irAE) data from CheckMate-067, irAE management guides for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and treatment guidelines. Utilities were obtained from published literature, using melanoma-specific studies when available, and were weighted based on incidence and duration of irAEs. Base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not the cost-effective choice ($454,092 per PF quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) compared with nivolumab monotherapy in a base case analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per PFQALY. Combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy were cost-effective choices compared with ipilimumab monotherapy. PD-L1 positive status, utility of nivolumab and combination therapy, and medication costs contributed the most uncertainty to the model. In a population of 100% PD-L1 negative patients, nivolumab was still the optimal treatment, but combination therapy had an improved incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $295,903 per PFQALY. Combination therapy became dominated by nivolumab, when 68% of the sample was PD-L1 positive. In addition, the cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease to < $21,555 per dose for combination therapy to have an ICER < $100,000 per PFQALY and to < $19,151 (a 42% reduction) to be more cost-effective than nivolumab monotherapy.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not cost-effective compared with nivolumab monotherapy, which was the most cost-effective option. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic implications of these new immunotherapies as they make value-based formulary decisions, and future cost-effectiveness studies are completed.No funding supported this study. Merino was a contractor with EMD Serono at the time of this study but does not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. All other authors have no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest. All the authors contributed to the study concept and design. Tran, McDowell, and Barcelon took the lead in data collection, along with Oh, Keyvani, and Merino. All authors except Merino contributed to data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Oh, Tran, McDowell, and Wilson and revised by Oh, Tran, McDowell, Wilson, and Keyvani. This analysis was presented at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016, April 19-22, 2016, in San Francisco, California, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual International Meeting, May 21-25, 2016, in Washington DC.

Project description:BackgroundCetuximab and panitumumab, two anti-EGFR therapies, are widely used for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS, but there remains uncertainty around their cost effectiveness. The objective of this analysis was to conduct a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy change introducing KRAS testing and third-line anti-EGFR therapy mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Canada.MethodsWe conducted secondary analysis of administrative data for a cohort of mCRC patients treated in BC in 2006-2015. Patients potentially eligible for KRAS testing and third-line therapy after the policy change (July 2009) were matched 2:1 to pre-policy patients using genetic matching on propensity score and baseline covariates. Costs and survival time were calculated over an 8-year time horizon, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty around endpoints. Cost effectiveness was expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and the probability of cost effectiveness at a range of thresholds.ResultsThe cohort included 1757 mCRC patients (n = 456 pre-policy and n = 1304 post-policy; of those, n = 420 received cetuximab or panitumumab). There was a significant increase in survival and cost following the policy change. Adoption of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy had an ICER of CA$73,759 per life-year gained (LYG) (95% CI 46,133-186,446). In scenario analysis, a reduction in cetuximab and panitumumab cost of at least 50% was required to make the policy change cost effective at a threshold of CA$50,000/LYG.ConclusionA policy of third-line anti-EGFR therapy informed by KRAS testing may be considered cost effective at thresholds above CA$70,000/LYG. Reduction in drug costs, through price discounts or potential future biosimilars, would make anti-EGFR therapy considerably more cost effective. By using real-world data for a large cohort with long follow-up we can assess the value of a policy of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy achieved in practice.

Project description:Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs.Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness.In current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062-0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558-0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072-9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107-111,972 compared to current practice.Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

Dataset Information

Real-world comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

Publications

Real-world comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets