Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
How Assessment-Schedule Matching Limits Bias When Comparing Progression-Free Survival in Single-Arm Studies: An Application in Second-Line Urothelial Carcinoma Treatments.
Kapetanakis, Venediktos; Prawitz, Thibaud; Schlichting, Michael; Ishak, K Jack; Phatak, Hemant; Yu, Ting; Bharmal, Murtuza.
Afiliación
  • Kapetanakis V; Evidera, London, UK. Electronic address: venediktos.kapetanakis@evidera.com.
  • Prawitz T; Evidera, Paris, France.
  • Schlichting M; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
  • Ishak KJ; Evidera, Montreal, Canada.
  • Phatak H; EMD Serono, Inc, Rockland, MA, USA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
  • Yu T; EMD Serono, Inc, Rockland, MA, USA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
  • Bharmal M; EMD Serono, Inc, Rockland, MA, USA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Value Health ; 24(8): 1137-1144, 2021 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34372979
OBJECTIVES: Population-adjusted comparisons of progression-free survival (PFS) from single-arm trials of cancer treatments can be derived using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs); however, results are still susceptible to bias, particularly if the trials had different tumor assessment schedules. This study aims to assess the effects of assessment-schedule matching (ASM) on the relative effectiveness on the PFS of avelumab versus approved comparator immunotherapies or chemotherapy after population matching in the second-line (2L) setting for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: The MAIC used patient-level data for avelumab from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). PFS was compared with published curves for other treatments to obtain population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). The MAIC was repeated after conducting ASM for differences in tumor assessment scheduled first at 6 weeks for avelumab and durvalumab and at 8 or 9 weeks for other treatments. RESULTS: MAIC adjustment alone altered the HR estimates up to 23%, whereas MAIC plus ASM resulted in up to 32.7% reductions from naive comparisons. Even in cases in which MAIC had little effect, ASM brought an additional change of 11.1% to 15.4%. Overall, the HR range of avelumab versus other treatments changed from 0.83 to 1.25 for naive comparisons to 0.76 to 0.99 after ASM plus MAIC, numerically favoring avelumab. CONCLUSIONS: Small variations in assessment schedules can introduce bias in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons of interval-censored time-to-event outcomes. In this study, adjusted PFS was comparable across second-line urothelial carcinoma treatment options, numerically favoring avelumab versus immunotherapies and chemotherapy agents. Correcting this bias is especially important when HRs are applied in cost-effectiveness models to transition patients between states.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica / Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria / Carcinoma de Células Transicionales / Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados / Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos / Supervivencia sin Progresión / Anticuerpos Monoclonales Tipo de estudio: Health_technology_assessment Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Value Health Asunto de la revista: FARMACOLOGIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica / Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria / Carcinoma de Células Transicionales / Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados / Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos / Supervivencia sin Progresión / Anticuerpos Monoclonales Tipo de estudio: Health_technology_assessment Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Value Health Asunto de la revista: FARMACOLOGIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article