Dataset Information

Anti-PD1 versus anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Due to the increasing number of trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the first-line therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to investigate the difference between anti PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies, used alone or in combination with chemotherapy, through adjusted indirect analysis to minimize the potential bias regarding overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs).

Methods

A systematic review of studies reporting clinical outcomes and toxicity associated with first-line therapy employing anti-PD1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies alone, or in combination with chemotherapy, to treat metastatic, treatment-naïve NSCLC patients was performed. Primary outcomes were OS, PFS, ORR and grade 3-5 AEs. We used a random-effects model to generate pooled estimates for proportions. Meta-analyses using pooled risk ratios were performed for binary outcomes from comparative studies with the random effects model.

Results

A total of 13 eligible studies met our eligibility criteria, including 7673 patients. In the ICI-chemotherapy combination subgroup, we observed that anti-PD1 therapy was associated with better OS (p = 0.022) and PFS (p = 0.029) compared with anti-PD-L1 therapy. In the monotherapy subgroup, there was no statistical difference between the use of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 for OS and PFS. With regard to ORR and toxicity, in the ICI-chemotherapy combination subgroup, we observed a trend of better ORR (p = 0.12) with the use of anti-PD1 therapy and less frequent grade 3-5 AEs compared to the use of anti-PD-L1 therapy (p = 0.0302). In the monotherapy subgroup, there was no statistical difference between the use of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 regarding ORR and toxicity.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that PD-1 drug plus chemotherapy is superior to anti-PD-L1 plus chemotherapy for NSCLC; nevertheless, as monotherapy, both strategies appear to be similar.

SUBMITTER: Brito ABC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8017262 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProgrammed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitor is a promising therapeutic option that can be used as either a first-line or second-line treatment for driver-negative advanced or metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancers (sqNSCLC). However, reuse of PD-1/L1 inhibitor in second-line beyond progression after the first-line is generally not recommended. Therefore, oncologists face challenges in making a proper decision of using PD-1/L1 inhibitor. This analysis aimed to determine whether it is more cost-effective to use sintilimab, a domestic anti-PD-1 drug in China, as a first-line treatment than reserving it until second-line.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the use of sintilimab in the first-line setting with reserving its use until the second-line for driver-negative advanced or metastatic sqNSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. A Markov model composed of five main mutually independent health states and three temporary health states was established to simulate patients' clinical trajectory. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse events-related treatment discontinuation, were estimated using data from the ORIENT-12, ORIENT-3, and ALTER0303 clinical trials. The robustness of the model was assessed using deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsReserving the use of sintilimab until the second-line was associated with a greater effectiveness (1.52 vs. 1.37 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and a higher healthcare cost ($12,203 vs. $14,045) compared with the first-line sintilimab, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $12,693 per QALY. The results of DSA suggested that variations in all parameters did not result in the ICERs surpassing the willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,663/QALY.ConclusionsFor Chinese patients with driver-negative advanced or metastatic sqNSCLC, reserving the use of sintilimab until the second-line represents a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with the first-line treatment. This finding is useful to inform Chinese healthcare policymakers regarding the optimized treatment strategies of use of domestic PD-1/L1 inhibitors sintilimab.