Treatment-Switching Adjustment of Overall Survival in CheckMate 227 Part 1 Evaluating First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy for Metastatic Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826) evaluated first-line nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1% or < 1% and no EGFR/ALK alterations. However, many patients randomized to chemotherapy received subsequent immunotherapy. Here, overall survival (OS) and relative OS benefit of nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab were adjusted for potential bias introduced by treatment switching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-switching adjustment analyses were conducted following the NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 16, for CheckMate 227 Part 1 OS data from treated patients (database lock, July 2, 2019). Inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) was used in the base-case analysis; other methods were explored as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Of 1166 randomized patients, 391 (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 185 (PD-L1 < 1%) patients received nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab; 387 (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 183 (PD-L1 < 1%) patients received chemotherapy, with 29.3-month minimum follow-up. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, 169/387 (43.7%; PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 66/183 (36.1%; PD-L1 < 1%) switched to immunotherapy poststudy. Among treated patients, median OS was 17.4 months with nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus 14.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.95) in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% subgroup and 17.1 versus 12.4 months (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) in the PD-L1 < 1% subgroup. After treatment-switching adjustment using IPCW, the HR (95% CI) for OS for nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was reduced to 0.68 (0.56-0.83; PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 0.53 (0.40-0.69; PD-L1 < 1%). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: Treatment-switching adjustments resulted in a greater estimated relative OS benefit with first-line nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Golimumab in Ankylosing Spondylitis from the UK Payer Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Golimumab is a tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor for treatment of patients with severe, active ankylosing spondylitis. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of golimumab compared with conventional care and other TNF-α inhibitors in treatment of AS from the UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A long-term Markov model (with initial decision tree) was developed to simulate the progression of a hypothetical cohort of patients with active AS over a lifetime. The effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Utilities were estimated by mapping Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index scores, and the primary response measure was ≥50% improvement on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index at 12 weeks. Direct, medication, and AS management costs were included. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: All TNF-α inhibitors were comparable to each other and superior to conventional care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for TNF-α inhibitors were £19,070-42,532 per QALY gained compared with conventional care. Analyses of the ICERs for each TNF-α inhibitor compared with conventional care demonstrated that golimumab was the most cost-effective treatment, and that adalimumab and etanercept were dominated by golimumab. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Golimumab may be considered a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with active AS. With comparable costs and efficacy among TNF-α inhibitors, the choice of TNF-α inhibitor to treat AS is likely to be driven by patient and physician choice. FUNDING: Merck & Co., Inc.

Cost-effectiveness of raltegravir in HIV/AIDS.

Raltegravir is a first-in-class HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with established antiviral efficacy in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. In this article, we summarize pharmacoeconomic evaluations of raltegravir-based treatment regimens, compared with alternative therapies, in the treatment of patients with HIV infection and/or AIDS. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of raltegravir in treatment-experienced patients conducted using a continuous-time, state-transition Markov cohort model suggest that raltegravir, combined with optimized background therapy, falls within the range that would generally be considered cost effective compared with optimized therapy alone in Spanish, Swiss and UK health systems. In treatment-naive populations, raltegravir was evaluated using a three-stage continuous-time state-transition cohort model. Raltegravir-based initiation treatment strategies (first-line raltegravir) were compared with protease inhibitor and non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor initiation strategies, in which raltegravir was retained for salvage therapy. First-line raltegravir was cost-effective versus retaining raltegravir for salvage therapy in several European populations. A separate economic model was used to evaluate first-line raltegravir against two alternative initiation regimens representing standard clinical practice in Australia; raltegravir proved to be cost effective in both scenarios. In all studies examined, results were sensitive to factors including treatment duration, mortality rate, analytic time horizon, health utility weights, cost of raltegravir and optimized therapy, incidence of opportunistic infection and discount rates. Nonetheless, raltegravir remained cost effective under most scenarios.

Arterial complications following cardiac catheterization in children less than 10 kg.

We sought to determine if a higher dose of heparin would reduce arterial complications in patients weighing 10 kg or less undergoing cardiac catheterization to investigate congenital heart disease. Sixty patients were given either 100 (group A) or 150 (group B) IU x kg(-1) of heparin in a double-blinded randomized manner. Initial arterial access was established using a 4F cannula in all patients. Mean activated clotting time measured 20 minutes following heparin administration was significantly lower in group A than in group B (199 versus 251 seconds). Only 3 out of 60 patients (5%) required treatment for loss of femoral pulse. The age, weight, activated clotting time, length of catheterization procedure, time taken to establish arterial access, and the duration of arterial cannulation were comparable between the groups. Weight under 4 kg, age under 1 month, and cannula size larger than 4F were identified as independent risk factors for the development of arterial complications. Arterial access using a 4F cannula is a safe procedure in children weighing 10 kg or less. The incidence of significant arterial complications is low, and they do not appear to be preventable by a higher dose of heparin.