Clinical outcomes of adjuvant nivolumab in resected stage III melanoma: comparison of CheckMate 238 trial and real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Nivolumab is approved as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III/IV melanoma based on the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial. This analysis compared outcomes from CheckMate 238 with those from the real-world Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab. MATERIALS: Outcomes included baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS) in the CheckMate 238 cohort (randomization until death or last known alive), and real-world overall survival (rwOS) in the Flatiron Health cohort (nivolumab initiation until death or data cutoff). rwOS was compared with OS using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was combined with the adjusted model to reduce baseline discrepancies. RESULTS: The CheckMate 238 and real-world cohorts included 369 and 452 patients, respectively (median age, 56.0 and 63.0 years; median follow-up, 61.4 vs. 25.5 months). rwOS was not different from OS in the unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 0.92-1.74), adjusted (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.67-1.54), and adjusted IPTW (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.63) analyses. In the adjusted analysis, 2-year OS and rwOS rates were 84%. Median OS and rwOS were not reached. After IPTW, OS and rwOS were not different (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.64). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, OS in the CheckMate 238 trial was similar to rwOS in the Flatiron Health database after adjustments in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab, validating the trial results.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Nivolumab Versus Observation or Ipilimumab as Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Melanoma Using Pooled Clinical Trial Data.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab has been approved in patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection, in the adjuvant setting. A pivotal trial compared nivolumab with ipilimumab; however, no head-to-head trial exists comparing nivolumab to observation, a common comparator in the adjuvant setting. Here, we compared the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with observation or ipilimumab as adjuvant therapies in resected stage IIIB/C melanoma. METHODS: Patient data were pooled from the EORTC 18071 and CheckMate 238 trials using propensity score weighting and adjusting for cross-trial differences. Number needed to treat (NNT) and costs per recurrence-free life-month (RFLM) at 12, 16, 18, and 24 months (as data allowed) were estimated. Costs included drug acquisition, administration costs, and direct medical costs. Sensitivity analyses including patients with stage IIIB/C and resected stage IV melanoma were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1287 patients (278 nivolumab, 365 observation, and 644 ipilimumab) with resected stage IIIB/C melanoma were pooled. NNTs to achieve one additional recurrence-free survivor with nivolumab versus observation were 3.93 at 12 months and 3.42 at 24 months; NNTs for nivolumab versus ipilimumab were 7.97 at 12 months and 6.43 at 24 months. Mean drug costs per RFLM were lower for nivolumab at 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively (nivolumab: $13,447, $9462, and $7370; ipilimumab: $52,734, $40,484, and $33,875). Mean medical costs per RFLM were the lowest for nivolumab versus observation or ipilimumab at 12 months ($449 versus $674 or $1531) and 16 months ($383 versus $808 or $1316). The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: For resected melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab is both clinically effective and cost-effective compared with observation or ipilimumab. Adjuvant nivolumab was associated with a lower drug cost per RFLM compared with ipilimumab, and a lower medical cost compared with observation. Future analyses incorporating long-term follow-up data may help increase understanding of the economic impact of nivolumab in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Real-world Effectiveness of Biologic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis After Etanercept Discontinuation in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the real-world effectiveness of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued etanercept treatment and subsequently received another tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor or a non-TNF-α biologic in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. METHODS: Medical record data of patients with RA were collected from a panel of rheumatologists in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Patients were required to have a diagnosis of RA, be ≥18 years old, and have initiated use of another TNF-α inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, or infliximab) or a non-TNF-α biologic (abatacept or tocilizumab) between January 2014 and May 2015 after discontinuing use of etanercept. Reasons for discontinuing use of etanercept and selecting a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) were described. Study outcomes included European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score. The study outcomes were compared among treatment groups (ie, TNF-α inhibitors and non-TNF-α biologics) using descriptive and multivariable-adjusted analyses. As a secondary analysis, the study outcomes were also descriptively compared between each of the TNF-α inhibitors. Because adalimumab is one of the most commonly used TNF-α inhibitor to treat RA, a secondary analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes among adalimumab, other TNF-α inhibitors, and non-TNF-α inhibitors. FINDINGS: Patient characteristics before initiating treatment with a second DMARD were similar across treatment groups (all TNF-α inhibitors [n = 296] and non-TNF-α biologics [n = 276]). The most common reasons for discontinuing etanercept treatment were inadequate response, adverse effects, and patient preference. After etanercept, TNF-α inhibitors overall were associated with a significantly lower EULAR good response rate (56.0% vs. 64.4%, P < 0.05) and smaller CDAI score change (-6.3 vs -7.3, P = .06) relative to non-TNF-α biologics. However, the proportion of patients achieving an EULAR good response was numerically higher for adalimumab versus other TNF-α inhibitors (61.1% vs 51.6%, P = 0.11) and comparable versus non-TNF-α biologics (61.1% vs 64.4%, P = 0.52). Adalimumab was also associated with a CDAI score change significantly greater than that of other TNF-α inhibitors (-7.1 vs -5.8, P < 0.05) and comparable to that of non-TNF-α biologics (-7.1 vs -7.3, P = 0.79). The results were consistent in the multivariable-adjusted analysis and secondary analysis. IMPLICATIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients with RA in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, after discontinuation of etanercept treatment, TNF-α inhibitors as a class were overall less effective as second biologic DMARDs relative to non-TNF-α biologics; however, adalimumab was more or as effective as other TNF-α inhibitors and non-TNF-α biologics.

Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Experienced Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compile all available evidence regarding the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitors, non-TNF biologics, and tofacitinib for TNF-experienced patients who have rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and rheumatology conference abstracts was performed to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting American College of Rheumatology response rates (ACR 20/50/70) for adult patients with RA who switched from at least 1 TNF to another TNF or a non-TNF therapy. A direct random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate ACR 20/50/70 response rates for TNF and non-TNF therapies. Separate analyses were conducted among 3-, 6-, and 12-month observational studies and for 6-month RCTs. FINDINGS: A total of 18 observational studies and 6 RCTs were selected. Among 3-month observational studies, the percentages of ACR20/50/70 responders switching to another TNF were similar to those switching to a non-TNF biologic (ACR20, 54.5% vs 58.6%; ACR50, 33.3% vs 33.3%; and ACR70, 13.0% vs 14.6%, respectively). Among 6-month observational studies, the percentages of TNF ACR20/50/70 responders were higher than those of non-TNF responders (ACR20, 67.7% vs 50.4%; ACR50, 50.4% vs 26.6%; and ACR70, 24.9% vs 11.6%). Among 6-month RCTs, the percentages of non-TNF biologic ACR20/50/70 responders were similar to those in the 6-month non-TNF observational studies (ACR20, 50.7% vs 50.4%; ACR50, 27.5% vs 26.6%; and ACR70, 11.9% vs 11.6%). For 12-month observational studies, TNF biologic ACR20/50/70 percentages were higher than those of non-TNF therapies (ACR20, 72.2% vs 57.0%; ACR50, 42.1% vs 28.9%; and ACR70, 22.9% vs 10.0%). IMPLICATIONS: For TNF-experienced patients with RA, subsequent TNF therapy and non-TNF biologic therapy have comparable efficacy.

Comparative efficacy of nilotinib and dasatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: Nilotinib and dasatinib have not been directly compared in a randomized trial for the treatment of newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML-CP). The purpose of this study was to indirectly compare rates of major molecular response (MMR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival by month 12 with nilotinib and dasatinib treatment of newly diagnosed CML-CP. METHODS: Individual patient data from a randomized trial of nilotinib vs. imatinib (ENESTnd) and published summary data from a separate randomized trial of dasatinib vs. imatinib (DASISION) were utilized. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted by weighting individual patients treated with nilotinib to match baseline characteristics reported for dasatinib-treated patients, including age, gender, ECOG performance status and hematology lab values. After matching, efficacy outcomes were compared for patients treated with nilotinib 300 mg twice daily vs. dasatinib 100 mg once daily. Patients randomized to imatinib 400 mg once daily in each trial were used to assess the adequacy of the matching. RESULTS: Before matching, patients randomized to nilotinib in ENESTnd (n = 273) were older, with a lower median platelet count and more favorable performance status compared to patients randomized to dasatinib in DASISION (n = 259). After matching, all baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. Matched patients treated with nilotinib vs. dasatinib experienced significantly higher rates of MMR (56.8 vs. 45.9%, p = 0.014) and overall survival (99.5 vs. 97.3%, p = 0.046) and numerically higher rates of PFS (98.8 vs. 96.5%). Matched imatinib arms showed no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in these outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Baseline measures unavailable in one or both trials could not be matched. Adverse event rates were not formally compared across trials due to differences in reporting. CONCLUSION: Nilotinib was associated with significantly higher rates of MMR and overall survival compared with dasatinib by month 12 in the treatment of newly diagnosed CML-CP.