Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab and Other Treatment Options for Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most phase 3 clinical trials of systemic therapy for first-line unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have failed, with the exception of SHARP, REFLECT, and IMbrave150. We conducted indirect comparisons of therapies evaluated for first-line HCC treatment.

Summary

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for adults with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable HCC and no prior systemic treatment, including atezolizu-mab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, nivolumab, selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT), transarterial chemoembolization, and placebo or best supportive care. Randomized controlled trials published from January 1, 2007, to March 12, 2020, were retrieved from MEDLINE and Embase. Qualitative assessment of heterogeneity evaluated study designs, populations, and outcomes. Indirect comparisons used generalized linear models with random effects within a Bayesian framework and informative priors. We calculated relative efficacy estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and Bayesian posterior probability estimates of atezolizumab-bevacizumab being superior to other treatments. Nine clinical studies with a total of 3,897 participants were identified from 8,783 records and used to build the all-trials evidence network. Indirect comparisons suggested an improved overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib (odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CrI 0.39-1.04]; with 97% Bayesian posterior probability of being superior), nivolumab (0.68 [95% CrI 0.41-1.14]; 94%), sorafenib (0.59 [95% CrI 0.39-0.87]; 99%), SIRT (0.51 [95% CrI 0.32-0.82]; 100%), or placebo/best supportive care (0.40 [95% CrI 0.25-0.64]; 100%).

Key messages

Within the context of indirect comparisons, analyses of OS favored atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus other treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable HCC.

SUBMITTER: Vogel A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8237801 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.Main outcomes and measuresHealth care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.ResultsIn the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.Main outcomes and measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.Conclusions and relevanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Project description:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) is used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the optimal rescue therapy after A+B remains unclear. Combining locoregional therapy (LRT) with systemic treatment has been shown to improve tumor control, but the role in patients who fail A+B is unknown. We retrospectively enrolled patients who experienced radiological progression after A+B. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), post progression survival (PPS), and secondary progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by modified RECIST. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance baseline clinical features. A total of 61 patients were enrolled with a median age of 60.7 years, 83.6% male, 88.5% viral hepatitis-related, and 60.7% without prior systemic treatment before A+B. Patients receiving sequential therapies had significantly longer PPS than supportive care (10.5 vs. 2.3 months, P<0.0001). Among 37 patients received sequential systemic treatment, 18 received combined LRT. The median follow-up after post A+B failure was 6.6 months. The combined LRT group had higher ORR (27.8 vs. 0%, P=0.0197) and DCR (72.2 vs. 26.3%, P=0.0052) than systemic alone group. The median PPS and secondary PFS were significantly longer in combined LRT group (PPS: 12.2 vs. 5.8 months, P=0.0070; PFS: 5.0 vs. 2.6 months, P=0.0134) than systemic alone group. After IPW analysis, patients with combined LRT had superior PPS and secondary PFS. The incidence rates of AEs were higher in LRT combination compared to systemic alone (any grade AEs: 94.4 vs. 63.2%, P=0.0422; severe AEs: 33.3 vs. 5.3%, P=0.0422). No significant albumin-bilirubin index changed in the first 3 months in combined LRT group (0.966 [0.647-1.443], P=0.867) though a trend of deterioration in systemic alone group. In conclusion, sequential systemic therapy provides survival benefits after A+B failure. Furthermore, combining LRT with systemic treatment could provide better tumor responses and survival benefits with acceptable toxicity than systemic therapy alone.