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.

Real-world safety of first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Real-world adverse event (AE) data are limited for first-line (1L) treatments in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Using Flatiron Health Spotlight data, information for a pre-specified list of AEs was abstracted and described among patients with advanced NSCLC receiving 1L nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI), NIVO + IPI + chemotherapy and other approved immuno-oncology (IO) therapy + chemotherapy combination therapies. Results: Fatigue, pain, dyspnea, weight loss, decreased appetite, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, cough, constipation and rash were the most common AEs. Rates of AEs were generally numerically similar across the three cohorts. The majority of patients received treatment for AEs and approximately one fourth of the patients had hospitalization due to their AEs. Conclusion: The real-world safety experiences of patients treated with 1L NIVO + IPI-based regimens were in general similar to those treated with other approved IO + chemotherapy combination therapies.

Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies boost the immune system to fight cancer cells and have been approved to treat non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The IO combination of nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) is approved to treat NSCLC that has spread to other parts of the body or come back and at least 1% of the tumor cells express a protein called PD-L1; NIVO + IPI is also approved in combination with a short course chemotherapy, independent of tumor PD-L1 expression. While NIVO + IPI-based regimens are generally safe, some patients experienced side effects during the clinical trial. However, there is limited information on the side effects of these treatments in a real-world setting. This study analyzed data on side effects from a de-identified database of patients with advanced NSCLC who were treated with NIVO + IPI, NIVO + IPI + chemotherapy, or other approved IO + chemotherapy combinations based on information obtained from physicians' notes in clinical practice settings. The most common side effects among patients in all groups were tiredness, pain, shortness of breath, weight loss, decreased appetite, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, cough, constipation and rash. The rates at which the side effects occurred were numerically similar regardless of the specific treatment that patients received. Approximately one-quarter of patients in each treatment group were hospitalized because of a side effect. These results show that in a real-world setting, NIVO + IPI-based regimens have similar safety to other IO + chemotherapy combinations when used as a first treatment for NSCLC that has spread or come back.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

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.

Comparative Efficacy of Venetoclax-Based Combination Therapies and Other Therapies in Treatment-Naive Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of venetoclax (VEN) + azacitidine (AZA) and VEN + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) compared with AZA, LDAC, and decitabine monotherapies and best supportive care (BSC) in adults with untreated acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review and feasibility assessment was conducted to select phase III randomized controlled trials for inclusion in the NMA. Complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery and overall survival (OS) were compared using a Bayesian fixed-effects NMA. Treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) with higher values indicating a higher likelihood of being effective. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients across 5 trials were included. VEN + LDAC (SUCRA 91.4%) and VEN + AZA (87.5%) were the highest ranked treatments for complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery. VEN + LDAC was associated significantly higher response rates versus AZA (odds ratio 5.64), LDAC (6.39), and BSC (23.28). VEN + AZA was also associated significantly higher response rates than AZA (5.06), LDAC (5.74), and BSC (20.68). In terms of OS, VEN + AZA (SUCRA: 95.2%) and VEN + LDAC (75.9%) were the highest ranked treatments. VEN + AZA was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with AZA (hazard ratio 0.66), LDAC (0.57), and BSC (0.37), and VEN + LDAC was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with LDAC (0.70) and BSC (0.46). CONCLUSIONS: VEN + AZA and VEN + LDAC demonstrated improved efficacy compared with alternative therapies among treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Real-world effectiveness of benralizumab: Results from the ZEPHYR 1 Study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence characterizing the clinical outcomes and economic impact on patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab is limited. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients with severe asthma treated with benralizumab and assess its clinical and economic impact in the United States. METHODS: A pre-post benralizumab comparison was performed using a large US insurance claims database between November 2016 and November 2019. The primary cohort included patients with asthma aged 12 years or more with 2 or more records of benralizumab. Secondary cohorts included persistent users (6 or more records of benralizumab), patients switching to benralizumab from mepolizumab or omalizumab, and stratified by Medicaid vs non-Medicaid. Exacerbations, concomitant medications, and exacerbation-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared in the 12-month periods pre- and post-benralizumab initiation (index). RESULTS: Of the 204 patients in the primary cohort, mean age at index was 45.3 years and 68.6% were of female sex. The patients experienced a significant 55% reduction in rates of exacerbations post-benralizumab initiation (3.25 pre-index vs 1.47 post-index per person-year; P < .001), and 41% of the patients had no exacerbations post-benralizumab initiation. The proportion of oral corticosteroid-dependent patients decreased from 82% to 50% (P < .001). Reductions in HCRU were 42%, 46%, and 57% for asthma exacerbation-related inpatient hospitalizations, emergency department, and outpatient visits, respectively (all P < .001). Exacerbation-related costs decreased by $6439 ($13,559 vs $7120; P < .001). Similar results for all outcomes were observed for the persistent cohort, switch cohorts, and Medicaid vs non-Medicaid cohorts. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe asthma treated with benralizumab experienced clinical and economic benefits in the real world, as demonstrated by the reduction in exacerbations and HCRU.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Immunotherapy combinations are now accepted as safe and effective first-line treatment options for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This study used patient data from the CheckMate 214 clinical trial to evaluate the temporal trends and costs related to grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) among patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. We found that the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time and that patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower AE costs compared with those treated with sunitinib (at 42 months: US$19,096 vs US$27,473 per patient). As such, nivolumab plus ipilimumab may represent a treatment option that may reduce both the clinical and economic burden among patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Comparative safety and benefit-risk profile of biologics and oral treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A network meta-analysis of clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term (12-16 weeks) and long-term (48-56 weeks) safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments. METHODS: A systematic literature review of phase II-IV randomized controlled trials of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments was conducted (cutoff: July 1, 2020). Any adverse events (AEs), any serious AEs, and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were compared using Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs). RESULTS: Fifty-two and 7, respectively, randomized controlled trials were included in the short- and long-term NMAs, respectively. In the short-term NMA, the rates of any AEs were the lowest for tildrakizumab (posterior median: 46.0%), certolizumab (46.2%), and etanercept (49.1%). The rates of any serious AE were the lowest for certolizumab (0.8%), risankizumab (1.2%), and etanercept (1.6%). The rates of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were the lowest for risankizumab (0.5%), tildrakizumab (1.0%), and guselkumab (1.5%). In the long-term NMA, risankizumab had the lowest rates of all 3 outcomes (67.5%, 4.4%, and 1.0%, respectively) and the most favorable benefit-risk profile. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalizable to real-world populations. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-interleukin 23 agents were associated with low rates of safety events. Risankizumab had the most favorable benefit-risk profile in the long term.

Treatment patterns in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the era of immunotherapy.

Background: Chemotherapy (CT) alone was previously standard first-line (1L) therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but alternative treatments, including immunotherapy (I-O), are now available. Patients & methods: In this retrospective study, adults with stage IV NSCLC who initiated 1L treatment between 1 August 2018 and 31 December 2019 and had ≥2 visits were identified in the Flatiron database. Patients were followed up until 30 June 2020. Baseline characteristics and treatment patterns were described by treatment group: CT, I-O + CT, I-O monotherapy and other. Results: Approximately 20% of patients received 1L CT in the 2018-2019 timeframe studied; these patients tended to have squamous histology and low (≤49%) programmed death ligand-1 expression. Conclusion: A proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC still receive 1L CT despite the availability and widespread use of I-O therapies.

Economic burden associated with tuberous sclerosis complex in patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: Data on the economic burden associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) among patients with epilepsy in the United States (US) are limited. This study aimed to assess all-cause and epilepsy-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs in the US among patients with epilepsy and TSC compared with patients with epilepsy but without TSC. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted using the Symphony Health Solutions claims database (April 1, 2017-June 30, 2019). Patients with ≥1 medical claim with a diagnosis code representing epilepsy or seizures were assigned to the cohort with TSC if they had ≥1 medical claim for TSC; the remaining patients were assigned to the cohort without TSC. Patients in the cohort with TSC were exactly matched 1:5 on demographics to patients in the cohort without TSC. All-cause and epilepsy-related HRU, medical charges, prescription drug costs, and the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were compared between the matched cohorts over the 1-year study period. RESULTS: A total of 2028 patients with epilepsy and TSC were matched to 10,140 patients with epilepsy but without TSC. Patients with TSC were more likely to have a diagnosis code for refractory epilepsy (38.7% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001) and more likely to have used an AED (89.5% vs. 71.2%, p < 0.001) than patients without TSC over the study period. On average, patients with TSC received 2.1 distinct AEDs versus 1.3 distinct AEDs among patients without TSC. Compared with patients without TSC, patients with TSC had numerically but not statistically higher incidence rates of all-cause outpatient, clinic, office, and other visits; significantly lower rates of all-cause inpatient and emergency room visits (p < 0.001); and statistically significantly higher incidence rates of epilepsy-related outpatient, inpatient, office, and other visits (p ≤ 0.001). All-cause prescription drug costs were significantly higher among patients with TSC than patients without TSC (cost difference per patient: $14,179, p < 0.001). All-cause medical service charges were numerically higher for patients with TSC, but the differences were not statistically significant (charge difference per patient: $4293 for medical services, p = 0.707). Epilepsy-related costs were significantly higher for patients with TSC; the cost difference per patient was $14,639 for prescription costs (p < 0.001), and the charge difference per patient was $16,838 for medical charges (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: The results of this study underscore the high epilepsy-related HRU and costs incurred by patients with epilepsy and TSC relative to those incurred by patients with epilepsy but without TSC.

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended 4-year follow-up and analysis of relative progression-free survival from the randomized ELOQUENT-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase 3 ELOQUENT-2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and to date, has the longest follow-up of any monoclonal antibody in patients with RRMM. METHODS: In this extended 4-year follow-up of the ELOQUENT-2 trial, the coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate as well as the secondary endpoint of overall survival were assessed. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing Ld-based triplet regimens to guide treatment selection, 4 randomized controlled trials-ELOQUENT-2, ASPIRE, TOURMALINE-MM1, and POLLUX-were indirectly compared to provide insight into the relative efficacy of these regimens in RRMM. RESULTS: Data at 4 years were consistent with 2- and 3-year follow-up data: ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 29% versus Ld (hazard ratio, 0.71) while maintaining safety. The greatest PFS benefit among the assessed subgroups was observed in patients at the median time or further from diagnosis (≥3.5 years) with 1 prior line of therapy, who had a 44% reduction in the risk of progression/death, and in patients in the high-risk category, who had a 36% reduction in favor of ELd. This regimen also showed a relative PFS benefit that was maintained beyond 50 months. CONCLUSIONS: The sustained PFS benefit and long-term safety of ELd at 4 years, similar to those observed at 2 and 3 years, support ELd as a valuable therapeutic option for the long-term treatment of patients with RRMM.

Comparison of Adalimumab and Etanercept for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: An Indirect Comparison Using Individual Patient Data from Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes between adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Study groups included patients randomized to adalimumab or placebo (REVEAL and CHAMPION trials) and those randomized to etanercept or placebo (M10-114 and M10-315 trials). Week 12 outcomes were compared between patients receiving adalimumab and those receiving etanercept after adjusting for cross-trial differences in patient characteristics using propensity score weighting and after subtracting effects of placebo. Outcomes included proportion of patients achieving 75% or more, 90% or more, and 100% reductions from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75, PASI90, PASI100, respectively), symptom resolution (pruritus = 0; psoriatic pain = 0), lesion resolution (minimal scores for plaque signs erythema, desquamation, and induration, and by body regions head, upper limbs, trunk, and lower limbs), absence of skin-related quality-of-life impact (Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI] = 0), "complete disease control" (patient's global assessment [PtGA] = 0), and adverse events. RESULTS: After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced among study groups (adalimumab = 875 vs. placebo = 427; etanercept = 260 vs. placebo = 130). Compared with etanercept, adalimumab was associated with significantly better placebo-adjusted outcomes (PASI75: 62.3% vs. 42.6%; PASI90: 35.9% vs. 12.1%; PASI100: 13.1% vs. 4.9%; pruritus: 24.7% vs. 13.0%; psoriatic pain: 27.4% vs. 8.7%; DLQI: 27.7% vs. 11.7%; and PtGA: 16.4% vs. 10.6%; all P < 0.05), except for similar rates of adverse events and head-specific lesion resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with etanercept, adalimumab treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis was associated with greater PASI reduction, higher rates of resolution of skin signs and symptoms, and greater improvements in dermatological life quality.

Corticosteroid-Related Adverse Events Systematically Increase with Corticosteroid Dose in Noninfectious Intermediate, Posterior, or Panuveitis: Post Hoc Analyses from the VISUAL-1 and VISUAL-2 Trials.

PURPOSE: Chronic use of corticosteroids for the treatment of uveitis has been linked with drug-associated toxicity and adverse events (AEs). This study examines the association between corticosteroid dosage and incidence rates of corticosteroid-related AEs. DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of the VISUAL-1 and VISUAL-2 placebo-controlled clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: The clinical trials consisted of adults with active (VISUAL-1) and inactive (VISUAL-2) noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. Patients were randomized to receive adalimumab or placebo and underwent a protocol-defined mandatory taper to discontinue their oral corticosteroids. METHODS: Adverse event data were collected at each visit and included an assessment of the corticosteroid relationship by the investigator. A longitudinal Poisson regression model was estimated controlling for time-dependent corticosteroid dose, age, sex, prior oral corticosteroid dose, prior topical corticosteroid use, and concomitant immunosuppressive drug use. Only patients randomized to placebo were considered. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the frequency of AEs. RESULTS: The incidence rates of corticosteroid-related AEs among placebo patients during the prednisone treatment period in VISUAL-1 was statistically higher than after discontinuation (454.2 per 100 patient-years [PY] vs. 36.1 per 100 PY, incident rate ratio = 12.6, P < 0.001). Incidence rate ratios among VISUAL-2 patients were similarly high (317.5 per 100 PY vs. 41.1 per 100 PY, incident rate ratio = 7.7, P < 0.001). Based on the Poisson multivariate longitudinal Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model, each 10 mg increase in prednisone dose is associated with a 1.5- and 2.6-fold increase (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001) in the rate of corticosteroid-related AEs in VISUAL-1 and VISUAL-2, respectively. This implies in turn that a patient with active uveitis taking 60 mg/day of prednisone will experience, on average, an additional 10.1 (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-14.5; P < 0.001) corticosteroid-related AEs per year compared with a patient taking 10 mg/day, whereas a patient with inactive uveitis taking 35 mg/day of prednisone will experience, on average, an additional 23.5 (95% CI, 7.6-52.7; P = 0.05) corticosteroid-related AEs per year compared with a patient taking 10 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from VISUAL-1 and VISUAL-2 suggests that the incidence rates of corticosteroid-related AEs increase systematically with corticosteroid dose.

Poor early response to methotrexate portends inadequate long-term outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis: Evidence from 2 phase 3 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Most methotrexate-treated psoriasis patients do not achieve a long-term PASI75 (75% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score) response. Indications of nonresponse can be apparent after only 4 weeks of treatment. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction rule to identify patients unlikely to respond adequately to methotrexate. METHODS: Patient-level data from CHAMPION (NCT00235820, N = 110) was used to construct a prediction model for week 16 PASI75 by using patient baseline characteristics and week 4 PASI25. A prediction rule was determined on the basis of the sensitivity and specificity and validated in terms of week 16 PASI75 response in an independent validation sample from trial M10-255 (NCT00679731, N = 163). RESULTS: PASI25 achievement at week 4 (odds ratio = 8.917) was highly predictive of response with methotrexate at week 16. Patients with a predicted response probability <30% were recommended to discontinue methotrexate. The rates of week 16 PASI75 response were 65.8% and 21.1% (P < .001) for patients recommended to continue and discontinue methotrexate, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The CHAMPION trial excluded patients previously treated with biologics, and the M10-255 trial had no restrictions. CONCLUSION: A prediction rule was developed and validated to identify patients unlikely to respond adequately to methotrexate. The rule indicates that 4 weeks of methotrexate might be sufficient to predict long-term response with limited safety risk.

Benefit-risk trade-offs for treatment decisions in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: focus on the patient perspective.

Given the increasing number of available treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with varying efficacy and safety profiles, it is critical to understand the level of trade-offs that patients are willing to make between benefits and risks. Adult patients with moderate to severe RA were invited to participate in a discrete choice experiment that solicited their preferences for hypothetical RA treatments. Each participant was presented with 14 choice cards asking about their preference between two hypothetical RA treatments with varying levels of efficacy, adverse events, and process-related attributes. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the association between the attributes and the patient's decision and risk-increases were calculated. 510 eligible patients with moderate to severe RA completed the study. The average age of the participants was 56.4 years, 64.7% were female, and 45.1% received biologic agents. To achieve a 50% improvement in physical function, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 91.1, 4.7, and 18.4% for abnormal laboratory results, cancer, and serious infection, respectively. Similarly, to achieve a 50% reduction in RA-related pain, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 70.6, 3.7, and 14.2% for each AE. Moreover, patients were willing to trade risk-increases of 42.0, 2.2, and 8.5% for each AE to obtain a 50% reduction in the number of swollen joints. Patients with moderate to severe RA are willing to accept increased treatment risks to achieve improved physical function and disease control. These attributes are helpful to clinicians to make informed treatment choices.

Real-World Outcomes of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment with Intravenous Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In clinical trials, intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) reduces the likelihood of disability if given within 3 hours of acute ischemic stroke. This study compared real-world outcomes between patients treated and patients not treated with IV rt-PA. METHODS: In this retrospective study, United States-based neurologists randomly selected eligible acute ischemic stroke patients from their charts who were and were not treated with IV rt-PA. Mortality, hospital readmission, and independence were compared between patients treated and patients not treated with IV rt-PA using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 1026 charts were reviewed with a median follow-up time of 15.5 months. Pretreatment stroke severity, as measured by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, was comparable between cohorts (IV rt-PA =11.7; non-rt-PA = 11.3; P = .165). IV rt-PA patients experienced significantly longer survival (P = .013), delayed hospital readmission (P = .012), and shorter time to independence (P < .001) compared with patients not treated with rt-PA. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, IV rt-PA patients had significantly lower mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = .52 [.30, .90]) and greater rates of independence (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.42 [1.17, 1.71]) than patients not treated with rt-PA. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study indicated that acute ischemic stroke patients treated with IV rt-PA experience long-term clinical benefits in survival and functional status.

Comparative efficacy and incremental cost per responder of methotrexate versus apremilast for methotrexate-naïve patients with psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no clinical trials directly compare apremilast with methotrexate (the standard of care for initial systemic treatment of psoriasis). OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare apremilast's relative efficacy with that of methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis. METHODS: An anchor-based indirect comparison was conducted for 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score from baseline to week 16 (PASI 75) rates for systemic-naïve patients from Efficacy and Safety Trial Evaluating the Effects of apreMilast in psoriasis (ESTEEM) 1 and 2 (apremilast vs placebo) and Comparative study of HumirA vs. Methotrexate vs Placebo In psOriasis patieNts (CHAMPION) (adalimumab vs methotrexate vs placebo) trials. The difference-in-difference in PASI 75 response rates was calculated as the difference between the ESTEEM apremilast and placebo rates and the CHAMPION methotrexate versus placebo rates. Number needed to treat and incremental drug cost per responder were also estimated. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between apremilast and methotrexate in PASI 75 (risk difference 13.1%; 95% confidence interval -1.8% to 28.0%; P = .09). Number needed to treat with apremilast versus methotrexate to gain 1 additional PASI 75 responder was 7.6. Annual incremental drug cost of this responder was estimated at $187,888.33. LIMITATIONS: Few trials compare systemic-naïve patients. Only direct medication costs were considered. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical evidence of greater efficacy for apremilast versus methotrexate. The $187,888 incremental cost per PASI 75 may exceed what payers are willing to pay.

Real-World Patterns and Economic Burden Associated With Treatment Failure With Advanced Therapies in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis.

Background: Some patients lose response during treatment for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to characterize real-world treatment failure patterns and associated economic burdens during use of first-line advanced therapies for UC. Methods: IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases were used to identify adults initiating ≥ 1 advanced therapy for UC (January 1, 2010-September 30, 2019). Treatment failure was defined as augmentation with non-advanced therapy, discontinuation, dose escalation/interval shortening, failure to taper corticosteroids, UC-related surgery, or UC-related urgent care ≤ 12 months after treatment initiation. The index date was the date of treatment failure (treatment failure cohort) or 12 months after treatment initiation (persistent cohort). Treatment failure rates were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses. All-cause and UC-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs 12 months post-index were also assessed. Results: Analysis of treatment failure patterns included data from 6745 patients; HCRU and cost analyses included data from 5302 patients (treatment failure cohort, n = 4295; persistent cohort, n = 1007). In the overall population, 75% experienced treatment failure within the first 12 months (median: 5.1 months). Augmentation with non-advanced therapy (39%) was the most common first treatment failure event. The treatment failure cohort had significantly (P < .001) higher mean costs than the persistent cohort (all-cause, $74 995 vs $56 169; UC-related, $57 096 vs $47 347) mainly attributed to inpatient admissions and outpatient visits. Dose escalation/interval shortening accounted for the highest total costs ($101 668) across treatment failure events. Conclusions: Advanced therapies for moderate-to-severe UC are associated with high rates of treatment failure and significant economic burden. More efficacious and durable treatments are needed.

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.