Indirect comparison of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line metastatic lung cancer.

Aim: This study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials and methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using pooled individual patient data from KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 and published aggregate data from CheckMate 227 Part 1A, with platinum doublet chemotherapy as the anchor. Results: After matching, estimated hazard ratios (95% CI) of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab for overall survival and progression-free survival were 1.07 (0.82, 1.39) and 1.16 (0.93, 1.45), respectively. For objective response rate, the estimated risk ratio (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.71, 1.22) and the risk difference (95% CI) was -2.86%(-11.38, 5.67). Conclusion: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison results demonstrated comparable effectiveness between pembrolizumab monotherapy and nivolumab + ipilimumab as first-line therapies for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor-proportion score ≥1%.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy in first line treatment of NSCLC in the US - updated analyses with additional trial follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy substantially extends life expectancy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Its cost-effectiveness (CE) was previously evaluated based on interim trial analyses (follow-up ∼1 year). The present analysis describes CE incorporating additional follow-up based on protocol-specified final trial analyses (1-1.5 years additional follow-up), from a US healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model is used to compare pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs chemotherapy using data from the KN189 (non-squamous patients) and KN407 (squamous patients) clinical trials. An indirect treatment comparison vs pembrolizumab monotherapy is made for patient subgroups with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and 1-49% based on data from the KN024 and KN042 trials. Efficacy, treatment utilization, health utility, and safety data are derived from trials and projected over 20 years. Costs for drugs, non-drug disease management, and adverse events are also incorporated. RESULTS: Overall, versus chemotherapy alone, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy is projected to increase life expectancy by 1.12 years (3.35 vs 2.23) and 0.67 years (3.17 vs 2.50) in non-squamous and squamous patients, respectively. Resultant ICERs ($158,030/QALY and $178,387/QALY) are below a US 3-times GDP per capita threshold ($195,000/QALY). ICERs vs chemotherapy also generally fall below the threshold within PD-L1 sub-groups (except in squamous PD-L1 < 1%, which may have differed due to small sample size) while ICERs vs pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 1-49% sub-groups generally exceed it (except in squamous PD-L1 1-49%); largely a result of the higher drug acquisition cost of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy relative to differences in life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, with longer-term trial follow-up and in the context of prior literature, in the US, one of the two options for pembrolizumab use (either pembrolizumab + chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy), represents a cost-effective treatment in virtually all non-squamous and squamous metastatic NSCLC patient populations and PD-L1 sub-groups evaluated.

Pembrolizumab+chemotherapy versus atezolizumab+chemotherapy+/-bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations are approved for the management of advanced NSCLC which have not been directly compared in randomized clinical trials. This study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy+/-bevacizumab for previously untreated non-squamous NSCLC patients without EGFR/ALK aberrations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted using individual patient data (IPD) from KEYNOTE-021 Cohort G (KN021 G) (pembrolizumab + carboplatin + pemetrexed; N = 59) and KEYNOTE-189 (KN189) (pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum chemotherapy; N = 410) and published aggregate data from IMpower 130 (atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel; N = 451) and IMpower 150 (atezolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel + bevacizumab; N = 356). To adjust for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, data from patients randomized to pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in KN021 G/KN189 were reweighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients randomized to atezolizumab + chemotherapy from IMpower 130 or atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab from IMpower 150. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), blinded independent review-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). OS and PFS follow-up were truncated to the trial with shorter follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were conducted without truncation of follow-up of OS and PFS. RESULTS: After matching for cross-trial differences, the effective sample size of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was 428 and 389 for the IMpower 130 and IMpower 150 comparisons, respectively. The estimated HRs (95 % CIs) of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy were 0.80 (0.67,0.95) and 0.79 (0.67,0.93) with regard to OS and PFS, respectively. For pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab, the estimated HR (95 % CIs) was 0.86 (0.72,1.03) for OS and 0.81 (0.68,0.96) for PFS. For ORR, the estimated risk ratio (95 % CI) and the risk difference (95 % CI) was 0.9 (0.8,1.1) and -3.5 % (-10.0,3.1) for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy, respectively, and 0.8 (0.7,0.9) and -12.2 % (-19.6,-4.8) for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab, respectively. Findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses for both outcomes. CONCLUSION: MAIC results showed a significantly better OS and PFS for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared with atezolizumab + chemotherapy and a significantly better PFS for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared with atezolizumab + chemotherapy + bevacizumab.

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy vs. Nivolumab + Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapies in Patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% Metastatic NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of head-to-head trials, this study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs nivolumab + ipilimumab for the first-line treatment of metastatic stage IV NSCLC patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%. METHODS: An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted using pooled individual patient data (IPD) from the ITT population in KEYNOTE-021G, KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 (n = 816) and published aggregate data of nivolumab + ipilimumab from CheckMate 227 Part 1A (n = 793). To adjust for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, data from KEYNOTE-021G/KEYNOTE-189/KEYNOTE-407 were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of CheckMate 227 Part 1A. Outcomes included OS, PFS and ORR. Base case analyses were restricted to patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1%, with sub-group analyses in PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and 1-49%. RESULTS: The estimated HR (95% CI) of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs nivolumab + ipilimumab was 0.80 (0.59,1.09) and 0.53 (0.41,0.68) for OS and PFS, respectively. For ORR, the estimated risk ratio was 1.8 (1.3,2.4) for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs nivolumab + ipilimumab and the risk difference was 25.5% (15.0,36.0). PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and 1-49% sub-groups showed an OS HR of 0.89 (0.58,1.36) and 0.68 (0.46,1.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: These MAIC results suggest that pembrolizumab + chemotherapy leads to a greater clinical benefit vs nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% across multiple endpoints.

Updated Analysis of KEYNOTE-024: Pembrolizumab Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score of 50% or Greater.

PURPOSE: In the randomized, open-label, phase III KEYNOTE-024 study, pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a programmed death ligand 1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater and without EGFR/ALK aberrations. We report an updated OS and tolerability analysis, including analyses adjusting for potential bias introduced by crossover from chemotherapy to pembrolizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (for up to 2 years) or investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy (four to six cycles). Patients assigned to chemotherapy could cross over to pembrolizumab upon meeting eligibility criteria. The primary end point was progression-free survival; OS was an important key secondary end point. Crossover adjustment analysis was done using the following three methods: simplified two-stage method, rank-preserving structural failure time, and inverse probability of censoring weighting. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab, n = 154; chemotherapy, n = 151). At data cutoff (July 10, 2017; median follow-up, 25.2 months), 73 patients in the pembrolizumab arm and 96 in the chemotherapy arm had died. Median OS was 30.0 months (95% CI, 18.3 months to not reached) with pembrolizumab and 14.2 months (95% CI, 9.8 to 19.0 months) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.86). Eighty-two patients assigned to chemotherapy crossed over on study to receive pembrolizumab. When adjusted for crossover using the two-stage method, the hazard ratio for OS for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.69); results using rank-preserving structural failure time and inverse probability of censoring weighting were similar. Treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy (31.2% v 53.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: With prolonged follow-up, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy continues to demonstrate an OS benefit over chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated, advanced NSCLC without EGFR/ALK aberrations, despite crossover from the control arm to pembrolizumab as subsequent therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in the US.

Objective: To describe the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel; P + C) in metastatic, squamous, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the US. Methods: A model comparing P + C versus C alone is developed utilizing partitioned survival analysis. Primary clinical efficacy, treatment utilization, health utility and safety data are derived from the KEYNOTE-407 trial and projected over 20 years. Costs for drugs and non-drug disease management are also incorporated. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of P + C vs. pembrolizumab monotherapy (P) is evaluated via an indirect treatment comparison, for patient subgroups with PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) ≥ 50% and 1-49%. Results: Overall, P + C is projected to increase life expectancy by 1.95 years vs. C (3.86 versus 1.91). The resultant ICER is $86,293/QALY. In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 1-49% and <1 the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are $99,777/QALY, $85,986/QALY and $87,507/QALY, respectively. Versus P, in the PD-L1 ≥ 50% subgroup, P + C appears cost saving; however, this result should be interpreted with caution as there is considerable uncertainty in the relative efficacy of these comparators. Conclusions: Across all eligible patients, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is projected to approximately double life expectancy, yielding an extension to a point not previously seen in metastatic squamous NSCLC. Overall, and within all relevant PD-L1 subgroups, use of P + C yields an ICER below $100,000/QALY, and can be a cost-effective first-line treatment for eligible metastatic squamous NSCLC patients for whom chemotherapy is currently administered. In the PD-L1 ≥ 50% subgroup, additional follow-up within trials of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy are needed to better define cost-effectiveness between these comparators.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy in the 1st line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC in the US.

AIMS: To describe cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum and pemetrexed chemotherapy in metastatic, non-squamous, NSCLC patients in the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model is developed utilizing partitioned survival analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of KEYNOTE-189 trial comparators pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (carboplatin/cisplatin + pemetrexed) vs chemotherapy alone. Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization, health utility, and safety data are derived from the trial and projected over 20 years. For extrapolating survival beyond the trial, a novel SEER population-data approach is applied (primary analysis), with separate estimation via traditional parametric extrapolation methods. Costs for drugs and non-drug disease management are also incorporated. Based on an indirect treatment comparison, cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab monotherapy is evaluated for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%. RESULTS: In the full non-squamous population, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy is projected to increase life expectancy by 2.04 years vs chemotherapy (3.96 vs 1.92), for an approximate doubling of life years. Resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are $104,823/QALY and $87,242/life year. In patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 1-49%, life expectancy is more than doubled (4.53 vs 1.88 years) and (4.87 vs 2.01 years), with a 32% (2.60 vs 1.97 years) increase in PD-L1 < 1% patients. Corresponding incremental costs/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are $103,402, $66,837, and $183,529 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 1-49%, and <1% groups, respectively. Versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 ≥ 50% patients, representing current standard of care, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy increases life expectancy by 65% (4.53 vs 2.74 years) at an ICER of $147,365/QALY. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is projected to extend life expectancy to a point not previously seen in previously untreated metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. Although ICERs vary by sub-group and comparator, results suggest pembrolizumab + chemotherapy yields ICERs near, or in most cases, well below a 3-times US per capita GDP threshold of $180,000/QALY, and may be a cost-effective first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous NSCLC patients.

Effect of montelukast for treatment of asthma in cigarette smokers.

OBJECTIVE: Many asthmatic patients are unable to quit cigarettes; therefore information is needed on treatment options for smokers. This study evaluates 10 mg/d montelukast and 250 µg of fluticasone propionate twice daily, each compared with placebo, in patients with self-reported active smoking (unable to quit) and asthma. METHODS: Patients (ages 18-55 years, with asthma [≥1 year], FEV1 of 60% to 90% of predicted value, airway reversibility [≥12%], and self-reported active smoking [≥0.5 to ≤2 packs per day]) were randomized (after a 3-week, single-blind, placebo, run-in period) to 1 of 3 parallel, 6-month, double-blind treatment arms. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of days with asthma control during treatment. Adverse experiences (AEs) were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 347, 336, and 336 patients randomized to montelukast, fluticasone, and placebo, respectively. The mean percentage of days with asthma control over 6 months of treatment was 45% (montelukast, P < .05 vs placebo), 49% (fluticasone, P < .001 vs placebo), and 39% (placebo); the difference between montelukast and fluticasone was not significant (P = .14). Patients with a smoking history of ≤11 pack years (the median value) tended to show more benefit with fluticasone, whereas those with a smoking history of >11 pack years tended to show more benefit with montelukast. AEs occurred in similar proportions among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of asthmatic patients actively smoking cigarettes, both 10 mg/d montelukast and 250 µg of fluticasone propionate twice daily significantly increased the mean percentage of days with asthma control compared with placebo.