Comparative efficacy of combination immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

AIM: Comparison of clinical outcomes of nivolumab + ipilimumab versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib + trametinib or vemurafenib + cobimetinib) in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted between nivolumab + ipilimumab (CheckMate 067/069 studies) and BRAF + MEK inhibitors (COMBI-d, COMBI-v and coBRIM studies). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and objective response rates were assessed. RESULTS: After adjusting, nivolumab + ipilimumab showed improved OS versus dabrafenib + trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.89) or vemurafenib + cobimetinib (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.36-0.89); OS outcomes were similar at 1 year, with benefits emerging after 12 months; progression-free survival and objective response rates were similar. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54.1% with nivolumab + ipilimumab, 31.6% with dabrafenib + trametinib and 59.5% with vemurafenib + cobimetinib. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab + ipilimumab had significantly improved clinical outcomes versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors, with benefits increasing after longer follow-up. Ongoing randomized trials directly comparing these treatments are necessary to prospectively validate these findings.

Relative effectiveness of sunitinib versus everolimus in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an updated matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

AIM: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of sunitinib and everolimus has been previously reported based on the RADIANT-3 everolimus trial. We performed an analysis using updated overall survival (OS) data based on sunitinib's trial (A6181111). METHODS: The MAIC matched on all baseline characteristics available from both studies. An anchored MAIC was performed for progression-free survival (PFS); an unanchored analysis was deemed more appropriate for OS due to crossover in both trials. A hazard ratio for sunitinib versus everolimus was derived from adjusted (weighted) sunitinib effects compared with the observed results for everolimus. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratio for sunitinib versus everolimus was 0.85 (0.39-1.89) for PFS and 0.82 (0.53-1.27) for OS. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate comparable PFS and OS with sunitinib and everolimus.

Additivity of nebivolol/valsartan single-pill combinations versus other single-pill combinations for hypertension.

The single-pill combination (SPC) comprising nebivolol (5 mg), a vasodilatory ß1 -selective antagonist/ß3 -agonist, and valsartan (80 mg), a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved ß-blocker/renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor SPC for hypertension. Additive effects of four nebivolol/valsartan SPC doses (5 mg/80 mg, 5/160 mg, 10/160 mg, 10/320 mg nebivolol/valsartan) were compared with five Food and Drug Administration-approved non-ß-blocker/renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor SPCs (aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide, aliskiren/amlodipine, valsartan/amlodipine, aliskiren/valsartan, and telmisartan/amlodipine). Additivity is the ratio of placebo-adjusted SPC blood pressure (BP) reduction to the placebo-adjusted monotherapy component BP reduction sums. A weighted average of comparator scores was calculated and compared vs nebivolol/valsartan. Additivity ratio scores for nebivolol/valsartan SPCs (diastolic BP range: 0.735-0.866; systolic BP range: 0.717-0.822) were similar to the comparator weighted average (diastolic BP: 0.837; systolic BP: 0.825). Among the nebivolol/valsartan SPCs, 5/80 mg had the greatest additivity (diastolic BP: 0.866; systolic BP: 0.822). BP reduction contributions with monotherapy were similar for nebivolol/valsartan 5/80 mg SPC. Additivity scores for nebivolol/valsartan and select non-ß-blocker/renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor SPCs were comparable.