Bayesian survival extrapolation for cost-effectiveness analysis: a case study of RELAY for ramucirumab in combination with erlotinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

AIM: Increasing trend for progression-free survival (PFS)-based primary endpoint in oncology has led to lack of mature overall survival (OS) data at the time of approval. To address this evidence gap in economic evaluations, we used a joint Bayesian approach to predict survival outcomes using immature OS data from the RELAY trial. METHODS: Patient data from RELAY and systematic literature review (SLR) of phase 3 randomized clinical trials with hazard ratio (HR) estimates of mature PFS and immature OS were considered. OS and PFS were analyzed individually using a univariate model; bivariate analysis was performed using a joint model based on modified Bayesian normal induced copula estimation model. First, a Bayesian univariate model incorporated informative priors based on predicted HR and acceleration factor for OS and PFS. Second, a Bayesian-based joint model of RELAY PFS and OS data was based on the correlation between PFS and OS established in trials of similar populations. Marginal distribution of PFS was used to estimate the same for OS. RESULTS: Publications (N = 122) of first-line treatments in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer were identified in the SLR, of which 36 trials were linked to RELAY. Twenty-six trials with HR data were used. The univariate model could predict OS with reduced uncertainty compared with the frequentist approach. In the joint model, the marginal OS distribution borrowed strength from the marginal PFS distribution through the established correlation coefficient. LIMITATIONS: Bayesian approach was successfully used in RELAY analysis but may not be universally applied to oncology trials due to the different associations of OS and PFS and different trial patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that both the univariate and joint Bayesian models reduced uncertainty in predicting OS compared to frequentist method. The methodology introduced here will have potential applications in clinical decision-making for other oncology trials.

Data Integration to Improve Real-world Health Outcomes Research for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States: Descriptive and Qualitative Exploration.

BACKGROUND: The integration of data from disparate sources could help alleviate data insufficiency in real-world studies and compensate for the inadequacies of single data sources and short-duration, small sample size studies while improving the utility of data for research. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe and evaluate a process of integrating data from several complementary sources to conduct health outcomes research in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The integrated data set is also used to describe patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and mortality rates. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study integrated data from 4 sources: administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, clinical data from a Cancer Care Quality Program (CCQP), clinical data from abstracted medical records (MRs), and mortality data from the US Social Security Administration. Patients with lung cancer who initiated second-line (2L) therapy between November 01, 2015, and April 13, 2018, were identified in the claims and CCQP data. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and received atezolizumab, docetaxel, erlotinib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, or ramucirumab in the 2L setting. The main analysis cohort included patients with claims data and data from at least one additional data source (CCQP or MR). Patients without integrated data (claims only) were reported separately. Descriptive and univariate statistics were reported. RESULTS: Data integration resulted in a main analysis cohort of 2195 patients with NSCLC; 2106 patients had CCQP and 407 patients had MR data. The claims-only cohort included 931 eligible patients. For the main analysis cohort, the mean age was 62.1 (SD 9.27) years, 48.56% (1066/2195) were female, the median length of follow-up was 6.8 months, and for 37.77% (829/2195), death was observed. For the claims-only cohort, the mean age was 66.6 (SD 12.69) years, 52.1% (485/931) were female, the median length of follow-up was 8.6 months, and for 29.3% (273/931), death was observed. The most frequent 2L treatment was immunotherapy (1094/2195, 49.84%), followed by platinum-based regimens (472/2195, 21.50%) and single-agent chemotherapy (441/2195, 20.09%); mean duration of 2L therapy was 5.6 (SD 4.9, median 4) months. We describe challenges and learnings from the data integration process, and the benefits of the integrated data set, which includes a richer set of clinical and outcome data to supplement the utilization metrics available in administrative claims. CONCLUSIONS: The management of patients with NSCLC requires care from a multidisciplinary team, leading to a lack of a single aggregated data source in real-world settings. The availability of integrated clinical data from MRs, health plan claims, and other sources of clinical care may improve the ability to assess emerging treatments.

Healthcare resource utilization in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: post hoc analysis of the randomized phase 3 REVEL study.

PURPOSE: In REVEL, patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and patients with increased tumor aggressiveness (rapid disease progression (RDP), platinum-refractory disease (PRD), and high symptom burden (HSB)) benefited from second-line treatment with ramucirumab plus docetaxel over placebo plus docetaxel. This post hoc analysis describes healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with the treatment. METHODS: aNSCLC patients who had progressed during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive docetaxel and either ramucirumab or placebo until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. HCRU included hospitalizations, transfusions, and concomitant medications. Categorical variables (counts and percentages) were compared using Fisher's exact test. Continuous variables (mean, standard deviation (SD), median, minimum, and maximum) were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were largely similar between treatment arms. Within the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 1253), the mean treatment duration was 19.7 and 16.9 weeks in the ramucirumab and control arms, respectively; 51.0% versus 54.9% of patients received subsequent anticancer therapy, respectively. Hospitalization rates were 41.9% versus 42.6% (p = 0.863), mean length of hospital stay was 14.5 days versus 11.3 days (p = 0.066), transfusion rates were 9.9% versus 12.3% (p = 0.206), and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors was 41.8% versus 36.6% (p = 0.063), respectively. No significant difference was observed in HCRU between treatment arms in both ITT population and in aggressive disease subgroups including RDP (n = 209), PRD (n = 360), and HSB (n = 497). CONCLUSION: In REVEL, the addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel did not increase HCRU among patients with aggressive aNSCLC disease. These results may help inform economic evaluation of treatment for patients with aNSCLC.

Reweighting Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence to Better Reflect Real Life - A Case Study of the Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Evidence from randomized controlled trials available for timely health technology assessments of new pharmacological treatments and regulatory decision making may not be generalizable to local patient populations, often resulting in decisions being made under uncertainty. In recent years, several reweighting approaches have been explored to address this important question of generalizability to a target population. We present a case study of the Innovative Medicines Initiative to illustrate the inverse propensity score reweighting methodology, which may allow us to estimate the expected treatment benefit if a clinical trial had been run in a broader real-world target population. We learned that identifying treatment effect modifiers, understanding and managing differences between patient characteristic data sets, and balancing the closeness of trial and target patient populations with effective sample size are key to successfully using this methodology and potentially mitigating some of this uncertainty around local decision making.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France.

BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for induction-maintenance (I-M) sequences for the treatment of patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) are limited because of a lack of direct evidence. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of I-M pemetrexed with those of other I-M regimens used for the treatment of patients with advanced nsqNSCLC in the French health-care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A previously developed global partitioned survival model was adapted to the France-only setting by restricting treatment sequences to include 12 I-M regimens most relevant to France, and incorporating French costs and resource-use data. Following a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses were performed to obtain hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) relative to gemcitabine + cisplatin (induction sequences) or best supportive care (BSC) (maintenance sequences). Modeled health-care benefits were expressed as life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) (estimated using French EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire tariffs). The study was conducted from the payer perspective (National Health Insurance). Cost- and benefit-model inputs were discounted at an annual rate of 4%. RESULTS: Base-case results showed pemetrexed + cisplatin induction followed by (→) pemetrexed maintenance had the longest mean OS and PFS and highest LYs and QALYs. Costs ranged from €12,762 for paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC to €35,617 for pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed (2015 values). Gemcitabine + cisplatin → BSC, pemetrexed + cisplatin → BSC, and pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed were associated with fully incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €16,593, €80,656, and €102,179, respectively, per QALY gained versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC. All other treatment sequences were either dominated (ie, another sequence had lower costs and better/equivalent outcomes) or extendedly dominated (ie, the comparator had a higher ICER than a more effective comparator) in the model. Sensitivity analyses showed the model to be relatively insensitive to plausible changes in the main assumptions, with none increasing or decreasing the ICER by more than ~€20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: In the absence of direct comparative trial evidence, this cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that of a large number of I-M sequences used for the treatment of patients with nsqNSCLC in France, pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed achieved the best clinical outcomes (0.28 incremental QALYs gained) versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC.

Treatment patterns and cost-effectiveness of first line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Medicare patients.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line pemetrexed/platinum and other commonly administered regimens in a representative US elderly population with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study utilized the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry linked to Medicare claims records. The study population included all SEER-Medicare patients diagnosed in 2008-2009 with advanced non-squamous NSCLC (stages IIIB-IV) as their only primary cancer and who started chemotherapy within 90 days of diagnosis. The study evaluated the four most commonly observed first-line regimens: paclitaxel/carboplatin, platinum monotherapy, pemetrexed/platinum, and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab. Overall survival and total healthcare cost comparisons as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for pemetrexed/platinum vs each of the other three. Unstratified analyses and analyses stratified by initial disease stage were conducted. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 2,461 patients. Greater administrative censorship of pemetrexed recipients at the end of the study period disproportionately reduced the observed mean survival for pemetrexed/platinum recipients. The disease stage-stratified ICER analysis found that the pemetrexed/platinum incurred total Medicare costs of $536,424 and $283,560 per observed additional year of life relative to platinum monotherapy and paclitaxel/carboplatin, respectively. The pemetrexed/platinum vs triplet comparator analysis indicated that pemetrexed/platinum was associated with considerably lower total Medicare costs, with no appreciable survival difference. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included differential censorship of the study regimen recipients and differential administration of radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed/platinum yielded either improved survival at increased cost or similar survival at reduced cost relative to comparator regimens in the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Limitations in the study methodology suggest that the observed pemetrexed survival benefit was likely conservative.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the U.S.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the lack of direct head-to-head trials, there are limited data regarding the comparative effectiveness of induction-maintenance sequences. The objective of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model to compare induction-maintenance sequences in the US for the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision analytic modelling was used to synthesize the treatment effect and baseline risk estimates for nine induction and maintenance treatment sequences, reflecting treatments used in the US. The model was structured using an area-under-the-curve approach and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Model validation was conducted by an independent third party. RESULTS: All active maintenance therapy-containing regimens, with the exception of gemcitabine+cisplatin (first-line)→erlotinib (maintenance), were more costly than induction-only regimens. Concerning treatments that may be cost effective, the incremental costs per life-year gained were $121,425, $148,994, and $191,270 for gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→best supportive care (BSC), pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, and for pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, respectively. All other regimens were found to be dominated (carboplatin+paclitaxel→BSC; carboplatin+paclitaxel→erlotinib; carboplatin+paclitaxel→pemetrexed; bevacizumab+carboplatin+paclitaxel→bevacizumab) or extendedly dominated (cisplatin+gemcitabine→pemetrexed). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the specific cost-effectiveness threshold used by a decision maker, the most cost-effective treatment sequence may include the referent comparator gemcitabine+cisplatin and the studied regimens of gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, or pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed.

Cost effectiveness of first-line pemetrexed plus platinum compared with other regimens in the treatment of patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the US outpatient setting.

This retrospective observational study evaluated cost effectiveness of first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with pemetrexed/platinum (Pem/Plat) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin (Pac/Carbo) and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (Pac/Carbo/Bev). Patients initiating first-line treatment from 2006 to 2009 were identified in electronic medical records of 20 US oncology practices. Pem/Plat patients were matched 1:1 on important characteristics with Pac/Carbo and Pac/Carbo/Bev patients and followed for 1 year to assess progression, survival, and costs. Bootstrapping was used to calculate the probability of falling within quadrants of the incremental cost-effectiveness plane. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling were also performed. Three hundred Pem/Plat patients (mean age, 67.6 years; male, 56.0%; PS 0/1, 71.0%) were matched with 300 patients in the other cohorts. Median PFS was 134 days (Pem/Plat) versus 106 days (Pac/Carbo) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67, P < 0.001) and 126 days (Pac/Carbo/Bev) (HR: 0.68, P < 0.001). Median OS was 298 days (Pem/Plat) versus 218 days (Pac/Carbo) (HR: 0.88, P = 0.08) and 271 days (Pac/Carbo/Bev) (HR: 0.93, P = 0.31). Pem/Plat therapy costs were higher versus Pac/Carbo ($21,841 higher PFS; $19,137 higher OS; P ≤ 0.05) and lower versus Pac/Carbo/Bev ($15,160 lower PFS; $19,946 lower OS; P ≤ 0.05). Pem/Plat had a greater probability of higher costs/higher effectiveness versus Pac/Carbo (PFS, 90.1%; OS, 96.3%) and lower costs/higher effectiveness versus Pac/Carbo/Bev (PFS, 69.5%; OS, 85.0%). Pem/Plat had higher cost and effectiveness than Pac/Carbo; depending on a payer's or society's willingness to pay, Pem/Plat may be considered cost effective compared with Pac/Carbo. Pem/Plat yielded greater effectiveness with lower costs than Pac/Carbo/Bev.

Treatment patterns and economic burden of metastatic and recurrent locally-advanced head and neck cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize treatment patterns and measure the economic burden associated with metastatic (mHNC) and recurrent, locally-advanced head and neck cancer (rHNC). METHODS: Administrative claims from Medicare- and privately-insured individuals during 2004-2008 were used in this retrospective database study of patients with advanced HNC. Patients diagnosed with HNC were matched 1:1 to cancer-free controls to measure the incremental economic burden of HNC. Outcomes of interest were measured during the 6 months following the date of a secondary tumor diagnosis for metastatic patients or the date of a diagnosis indicating rHNC. To assess treatment patterns, HNC patients were evaluated for the use frequency of treatments (radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery). Costs were reported in 2008 US$ from a third-party payer perspective and were analyzed using generalized linear models and two-part regression models adjusting for differences in age and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (excluding cancer diagnoses) between the HNC and control cohorts. Components of cost included inpatient, outpatient and other medical services as well as pharmacy costs. RESULTS: The mHNC cohort consisted of 1042 patients and the rHNC cohort included 324 patients. The most common treatments for mHNC patients were supportive care (90.2%), radiation therapy (48.5%), surgery (41.9%) and chemotherapy (38.3%). Patients with rHNC frequently received HNC-related supportive care (71.0%), radiation therapy (67.9%) and chemotherapy (27.2%); HNC-related surgery was infrequent (12.7%) during the study period. The 6-month incremental adjusted total costs were $60,414 per patient for mHNC and $21,141 per patient for rHNC (p<0.0001). Approximately 46-58% of the incremental cost was attributable to outpatient visits, 27-37% to inpatient costs and 11-13% to pharmacy, depending on the HNC cohort. LIMITATIONS: The identification of mHNC/rHNC was based on diagnosis codes and treatment patterns with the limitation of the claims database. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic and recurrent, locally-advanced HNC patients frequently receive cancer-related treatments and incur substantial economic burden.