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.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus surveillance for the adjuvant treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma who are at high risk of recurrence: a US payer perspective.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant nivolumab compared with surveillance for the treatment of patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) after radical resection from a US healthcare payer perspective and to investigate the impact of alternative modeling approaches on the cost-effectiveness results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A four-state, semi-Markov model consisting of disease free, local recurrence, distant recurrence, and death health states was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with surveillance over a 30-year time horizon. The model used data from the randomized CheckMate 274 trial (NCT02632409) and published literature to inform transitions among health states, and inputs on cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management. Scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of model structure and key assumptions on the results. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Total expected costs were higher with nivolumab ($162,278) compared with surveillance ($63,027). Nivolumab was associated with improved survival (1.61 life-years gained compared with surveillance) and an incremental gain of 0.98 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Although total treatment costs were higher for nivolumab, cost offsets were observed because of delayed or avoided recurrences and deaths experienced with nivolumab compared with observation. The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were $61,462/life-year and $100,930/QALY. LIMITATIONS: At the time of analysis, CheckMate 274 had limited follow-up on disease-free survival and no overall survival data. The limited evidence necessitated assumptions on modeling survival after each type of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective option for adjuvant treatment of MIUC for patients who are at high risk of recurrence after undergoing radical resection in the United States. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, the cost-effectiveness conclusions remained consistent across the scenario and sensitivity analyses conducted.

Challenges, considerations, and approaches for developing a cost-effectiveness model for the adjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: with a spotlight on nivolumab versus placebo.

AIMS: To present alternative approaches related to both structural assumptions and data sources for the development of a decision analytic model for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant nivolumab compared with surveillance in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) after radical resection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Alternative approaches related to both structural assumptions and data sources are presented to address challenges and data gaps, as well as discussion of strengths and limitations of each approach. Specifically, challenges and considerations related to the following are presented: (1) selection of a modeling approach (partitioned survival model or state transition model) given the available evidence, (2) choice of health state structure (three- or four-state) to model disease progression and subsequent therapy, (3) modeling of outcomes from subsequent therapy using tunnel states to account for time-dependent transition probabilities or absorbing health states with one-off costs and outcomes applied, and (4) methods for modeling health-state transitions in a setting where treatment has curative intent and available survival data are immature. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple considerations must be taken into account when developing an economic model for new, emerging oncology treatments in early lines of therapy, all of which can affect the model's overall ability to estimate (quality-adjusted) survival benefits over a lifetime horizon. This paper identifies a series of key structural and analytic considerations regarding modeling of nivolumab treatment in the adjuvant MIUC setting. Several alternative approaches with regard to structure and data have been included in a flexible cost-effectiveness model so the impact of the alternative approaches on model results can be explored. The impact of these alternative approaches on cost-effectiveness results are presented in a companion article. Our findings may also help inform the development of future models for other treatments and settings in early-stage cancer.

Real-World nivolumab dosing patterns and safety outcomes in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real-world data on this regimen are limited in this setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3-10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%-60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing 'significant' TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well-documented safety of weight-based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma.

Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years. METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm. RESULTS: This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.

Adherence to Adjuvant Therapy in Patients with Resected Melanoma: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior.

INTRODUCTION: Adherence to adjuvant therapy is crucial for effective disease management in patients with resected melanoma. This study assessed patient-reported adherence to adjuvant therapy and identified behavioral/belief constructs associated with adherence in patients with resected melanoma. METHODS: Patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma were recruited through the Melanoma Research Foundation and a patient panel to complete an online survey. Patient characteristics, medical history, and adherence to therapy were captured. In accordance with the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the survey measured behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, and intention to adhere to therapy. Structural equation modeling (SEM) examined their relationships with adherence. RESULTS: Among all patients who received adjuvant therapy and completed the survey (n = 184), 69% received intravenous and 31% received oral therapy; the majority (85.3%) were somewhat involved in deciding to start therapy. Mean age was 45 years, 44% of patients were female, and 83% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis. Patients had a mean disease duration of 1.5 years, a time since complete resection of 10 months, and an adjuvant therapy duration of 8 months. Adherence to adjuvant therapy was high overall and higher with intravenous than with oral therapy (98.4% versus 91.2%, P = 0.002). All underlying TPB constructs were significant in the SEM model, which explained 60.3% of the variance in intention to adhere. Control beliefs had the strongest association with intention to adhere (standardized estimate = 0.47, P < 0.001) and intravenous therapy was associated with greater adherence than oral therapy (standardized estimate = 0.26, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that patients with resected melanoma are highly engaged in the decision to initiate systemic adjuvant therapy, with an overall high adherence rate to prescribed adjuvant treatment. Enhancing patients' view of their capability to adhere to treatments may further improve the adherence rate to melanoma adjuvant therapy.

Safety and effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin among clinically-relevant subgroups of venous thromboembolism patients in the United States Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: The AMPLIFY trial found significantly lower major bleeding (MB) and similar recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) risks associated with apixaban vs warfarin among patients with VTE. OBJECTIVES: To compare MB, clinically-relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding, and recurrent VTE risks among clinically-relevant subgroups of newly diagnosed elderly patients with VTE prescribed apixaban vs warfarin. METHODS: US Medicare patients prescribed apixaban or warfarin within 30 days post-VTE encounter were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for patient characteristics. Cox models were used to assess MB, CRNM bleeding, and recurrent VTE. Subgroup analyses were conducted for index VTE encounter type, index VTE diagnosis type, index VTE etiology, sex, and frailty. RESULTS: Post-PSM, 11,363 matched pairs of patients prescribed apixaban or warfarin were identified. Apixaban had lower MB (Hazard Ratio [HR]:0.76; 95% CI:0.64-0.91) and similar recurrent VTE risks (HR:1.04; 95% CI:0.75-1.43) vs warfarin. No significant interactions were observed between treatment and index VTE encounter type, index VTE diagnosis type, or sex for risk of MB, CRNM bleeding, or recurrent VTE. Significant interactions: frail patients prescribed apixaban had a 15% lower, while non-frail patients prescribed apixaban had 32% lower CRNM bleeding risk vs those prescribed warfarin. Patients with provoked VTE prescribed apixaban trended toward a higher, while those with unprovoked VTE trended toward a lower risk of recurrent VTE vs patients prescribed warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban was associated with significantly lower risks of MB and CRNM bleeding, and similar risk of recurrent VTE as compared with warfarin across the overall population and most subgroups.

Correction to: Real-World Recurrence Rates and Economic Burden in Patients with Resected Early-Stage Melanoma.

The presentation of the numbers of patients in Tables 1 and 3 was adjusted.

Real-World Recurrence Rates and Economic Burden in Patients with Resected Early-Stage Melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world data on recurrence and economic burden in patients with resected early-stage melanoma are limited. The objective of this study was to assess real-world recurrence rates, risk factors for recurrence, and costs of recurrence in patients with resected stage IIB, IIC, or IIIA melanoma in the USA. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients with resected stage IIB, IIC, or IIIA melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual, seventh edition) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program-Medicare database of the National Cancer Institute. Recurrence rates and healthcare costs (2018 USD) after recurrence were assessed. RESULTS: Two-year recurrence rates for stages IIB, IIC, and IIIA melanoma were 29, 44, and 46%, respectively. In patients with stage IIB or IIC disease, the odds of recurrence were significantly higher in those aged > 75 years [odds ratio (OR) 1.853, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.416, 2.425], with ulceration (OR 1.771; 95% CI 1.293, 2.425), or with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.244; 95% CI 1.129, 1.372); however, the odds of recurrence were significantly lower in those with T3 staging (OR 0.522; 95% CI 0.393, 0.695). In those with stage IIIA melanoma, superficial spreading was associated with significantly lower odds of recurrence (OR 0.178; 95% CI 0.053, 0.601). Following recurrence, mean healthcare costs at 1 year were $31,870 for patients with stage IIB or IIC melanoma and $29,224 for those with stage IIIA melanoma. CONCLUSION: The SEER data show that a substantial proportion of adults with early-stage melanoma experience a recurrence within 2 years following resection, resulting in a significant economic burden to the US healthcare system. Dermatologists can distinguish patients with resected early-stage melanoma who are at a high risk for recurrence and consider referrals to medical oncologists for approved adjuvant therapy or enrollment in clinical trials after surgical resection to reduce the recurrence of melanoma.

Comparison of readmissions among hospitalized nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with oral anticoagulants in the United States.

Objectives: To compare the risks of 1-month all-cause, major bleeding (MB)-related and stroke-related readmissions and the associated hospital resource use and costs among patients previously hospitalized for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and treated with warfarin, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran vs apixaban. Methods: Adult patients hospitalized with NVAF (any discharge diagnosis position) who received apixaban, warfarin, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran during hospitalization were identified from the Premier database (1 January 2013-30 June 2017) and grouped into respective cohorts. Propensity score matching was used to generate cohorts with similar characteristics. In regression analyses the risk of readmissions that occurred within 1 month of discharge were evaluated and the associated length of stay (LOS) and costs compared. Results: NVAF patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban had significantly greater risk of all-cause (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05; confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.08; p < .001), MB-related (OR: 1.28; CI: 1.16-1.42; p < .001), and stroke-related (OR: 1.33; CI: 1.11-1.58; p = .002) readmissions; for all readmission categories, average LOS was significantly longer and costs significantly higher for warfarin treated patients. NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban versus apixaban had significantly greater risk of all-cause (OR: 1.06; CI: 1.02-1.09; p = .001) and MB-related (OR = 1.62; CI = 1.44-1.83; p < .001) readmissions, but not stroke-related readmission; for MB-related readmissions average LOS and costs were higher for rivaroxaban treated patients. Significant differences in risks of all-cause, MB-related, and stroke-related readmissions were not observed between the apixaban and dabigatran cohorts. Conclusion: In this retrospective real-world analysis of NVAF patients, apixaban treatment was associated with better clinical outcomes than warfarin or rivaroxaban and lower hospital resource burden.

Safety, effectiveness, and health care cost comparisons among elderly patients with venous thromboembolism prescribed warfarin or apixaban in the United States Medicare population.

Objective: To compare safety, effectiveness, and healthcare costs of major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and all-cause hospitalization among elderly Medicare VTE patients prescribed warfarin vs apixaban.Methods: Using 100% Medicare data, elderly patients prescribed apixaban or warfarin within 30 days after a VTE encounter were identified. Patients had continuous health plan enrollment and no parenteral or oral anticoagulant use ≤6 months preceding the VTE encounter. Cohorts were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the risk of MB, CRNM bleeding, recurrent VTE, and all-cause hospitalization. Generalized linear and two-part models were used to estimate MB-, recurrent VTE-, and all-cause related costs (per patient per month [PPPM]).Results: In the pre-matched cohort, 25,284 (66.9%) patients were prescribed warfarin and 12,515 (33.1%) apixaban. After 1:1 PSM, 11,363 matched pairs of apixaban-warfarin patients were included for a mean follow-up of 4.0 and 4.4 months, respectively. Matched cohorts had a mean age of 78 years and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2.9. Warfarin was associated with a higher risk of MB (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-1.57) and CRNM bleeding (HR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.19-1.43) vs apixaban. The risks of recurrent VTE (HR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.70-1.33) and all-cause hospitalization (HR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.99-1.12) were similar among warfarin and apixaban patients. Warfarin patients had higher MB-related ($147 vs $75; p = .003) and all-cause costs PPPM ($3,267 vs $3,033; p < .001), but similar recurrent VTE-related medical costs PPPM ($30 vs $36; p = .516) vs apixaban patients.Conclusions: Warfarin was associated with significantly higher risk of MB and CRNM bleeding as well as higher MB-related and all-cause costs vs apixaban patients. Recurrent VTE risk and costs were similar among warfarin and apixaban patients.