Comparative effectiveness of everolimus and axitinib as second targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the US: a retrospective chart review.

Background Second targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORis) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This observational study compares overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients treated with everolimus (an mTORi) and axitinib (a TKI) following first TKI, and assesses the impact of type and duration of first TKI on the relative effectiveness of these second targeted therapies. Methods Retrospective reviews of medical records were conducted by medical oncologists or hematologists/oncologists recruited from a nationwide panel. Included patients with mRCC were required to have discontinued a first TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) for medical reasons, and to have initiated everolimus or axitinib as second targeted therapy between February 2012 and January 2013. OS and PFS were compared between patients treated with everolimus vs. axitinib using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Comparative results were also stratified by type and duration of first TKI. Results Included patients (n = 325 for everolimus and n = 127 for axitinib) had a mean age of 61 years and 31% were female. Sunitinib was the most commonly used first TKI (73%). After adjusting for patient characteristics, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS or PFS between everolimus and axitinib. When stratifying by type and duration of first TKI, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between everolimus and axitinib in all subgroups except for patients with <6 months on sunitinib or sorafenib as first TKI. No significant difference in PFS was observed in any subgroup. Limitations Important limitations include potential missing or inaccurate data in medical charts, and confounding due to unobserved factors. Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, no significant differences were detected in OS or PFS between axitinib and everolimus as second targeted therapy. Longer duration of first TKI was not associated with increased effectiveness of subsequent axitinib compared to everolimus.

Real-world dosing and drug costs with everolimus or axitinib as second targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective chart review in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To describe dosing patterns and to compare the drug costs per month spent in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) treated with everolimus or axitinib following a first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). METHODS: A medical record retrospective review was conducted among medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists in the US. Patient eligibility criteria included: (1) age ≥18 years; (2) discontinuation of first TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) for medical reasons; (3) initiation of axitinib or everolimus as a second targeted therapy during February 2012-January 2013. Real-world dosing patterns were summarized. Dose-specific drug costs (as of October 2014) were based on wholesale acquisition costs from RED BOOK Online. PFS was compared between everolimus and axitinib using a multivariable Cox proportion hazards model. Everolimus and axitinib drug costs per month of PFS were compared using multivariable gamma regression models. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients received everolimus and 127 patients received axitinib as second targeted therapy. Higher proportions of patients treated with axitinib vs everolimus started on a higher than label-recommended starting dose (14% vs 2%) or experienced dose escalation (11% vs 1%) on second targeted therapy. The PFS did not differ significantly between patients receiving everolimus or axitinib (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73-1.82). After baseline characteristics adjustment, axitinib was associated with 17% ($1830) higher drug costs per month of PFS compared to everolimus ($12,467 vs $10,637; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective observational study design and only drug acquisition costs considered in drug costs estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aRCC receiving axitinib as second targeted therapy were more likely to initiate at a higher than label-recommended dose and were more likely to dose escalate than patients receiving everolimus. With similar observed durations of PFS, drug costs were significantly higher-by 17% per month of PFS-with axitinib than with everolimus.

Real-World Effectiveness of Everolimus Subsequent to Different First Targeted Therapies for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Synthesis of Retrospective Chart Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The effect of first targeted therapy on outcomes with second targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma is not well known. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for patients receiving a second targeted therapy with everolimus by type of first targeted therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were drawn from 3 separate retrospective chart reviews conducted in 2011, 2012, and 2014. Inclusion criteria and study design were similar across the 3 studies. To be included in this analysis, patients had to meet the following criteria: aged ≥ 18 years; received first targeted therapy with pazopanib, sunitinib, or sorafenib; and received second targeted therapy with everolimus. Overall survival, time to treatment failure, and time to treatment discontinuation outcomes were measured from second targeted therapy initiation. Outcomes were compared among treatment groups by Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Hazard ratios for overall survival, time to treatment failure, and time to treatment discontinuation obtained from the 3 chart reviews were synthesized in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Of 696 patients treated with everolimus as second targeted therapy, 605 patients received first targeted therapy with sunitinib/sorafenib and 91 with pazopanib. After synthesizing the hazard ratios from all studies in meta-analyses, there were no significant differences in study outcomes between patients receiving sunitinib/sorafenib versus those receiving pazopanib as first targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences among outcomes while receiving second targeted therapy with everolimus for patients treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib/sorafenib as first targeted therapy.

Physician experiences and preferences in the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the United States: a physician survey.

Sequential endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and without visceral symptoms. Chemotherapy (CT) can be considered after sequential ETs, but is associated with adverse side effects. We assessed physicians' preferences and self-reported prescribing patterns for ET and CT in the treatment of HR+/HER2- mBC at community practices in the United States. Community-based oncologists/hematologists from a nationwide online panel who treated postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC were invited to complete a survey, blinded to the identity of study sponsor. Treatment preferences were collected by treatment class of ET-based regimens versus CT and by agent for postmenopausal HR+/HER2- mBC patients after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor use in the adjuvant or mBC setting. Among 213 physicians who completed the survey, 78% were male, 71% were based in small/intermediate practices (2-9 oncologists/subspecialists), 55% had >10 years of experience, and 58% referred to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines when treating mBC. Among first-line ETs, anastrozole was the most frequently used treatment (35%), followed by everolimus-based (EVE, 34%) and fulvestrant-based (FUL, 15%) therapy. After first-line ET, the most preferred second- and third-line treatments were ET monotherapy (48% and 39%), ET combination therapy (31% and 19%), and CT monotherapy (13% and 30%). Comparing EVE versus FUL, physicians preferred EVE in all lines but first line. Efficacy was the most important consideration for treatment choice. Physicians prescribed CT in early lines mainly because of visceral symptoms. This survey of treatment patterns for HR+/HER2- mBC in community practice suggested that after first-line ET, ET mono- or combination therapy was commonly used for the second- and third-line treatments and CT monotherapy for third- or later line treatments. CTs were used in early lines for patients with visceral symptoms.

Comparative outcomes of everolimus, temsirolimus and sorafenib as second targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a US medical record review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with everolimus, temsirolimus, and sorafenib following initial treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in community and academic practices throughout the US. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Medical records of mRCC patients who received everolimus, temsirolimus or sorafenib as their second therapy following a TKI were retrospectively reviewed from a nationally representative panel of oncologists. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of second targeted therapies were compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, with adjustment for demographics, disease severity and prior treatments. RESULTS: A total of 233, 178, and 123 mRCC patients receiving everolimus, temsirolimus, and sorafenib, respectively, as second targeted therapies were included. Eighty-six percent used sunitinib and the remainder used sorafenib or pazopanib as their initial TKI. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, everolimus was associated with significantly prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; CI 0.42-0.85; p = 0.004) and PFS (HR 0.73; CI 0.54-0.97; p = 0.032) compared to temsirolimus. Everolimus was associated with significantly longer OS (HR 0.66; CI 0.44-0.99; p = 0.045) and numerically longer PFS compared to sorafenib. No significant differences were observed between temsirolimus and sorafenib. LIMITATIONS: Despite adjustment for multiple patient characteristics, comparisons between treatment groups may be confounded by unobserved factors in this retrospective observational study. Tolerability outcomes were not collected. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, non-randomized study of mRCC patients with prior TKI treatment, everolimus was associated with significantly prolonged OS and PFS compared to temsirolimus and significantly prolonged OS compared to sorafenib.

Cost effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release versus atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: application of a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: About 7% of children and adolescents are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the US. Patients with ADHD who are intolerant of or do not have an optimal response to stimulants often use non-stimulants as alternative therapies. Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) and atomoxetine (ATX) are the only non-stimulants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for once-daily use in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD in the US. ATX has been on the market since 2002 while GXR was recently approved in 2009. To date, there is no comparative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness study comparing the two drugs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents, using the comparative efficacy results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: The MAIC method was used to compare the efficacy between GXR (target dose and lower doses) and ATX (target dose) in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials. Individual patients in the GXR trials were weighted such that the summary baseline characteristics and the efficacy of the placebo arm of the GXR trials matched exactly with those from published ATX trials. After weighting, the efficacy (i.e. change in the ADHD rating scale, fourth edition [ADHD-RS-IV] total score from baseline) was compared between each GXR dosing group and the ATX group. The results from the MAIC analyses were used to populate a 1-year Markov model that is used to compare the cost effectiveness of GXR versus ATX from a US third-party payer perspective. Effectiveness outcomes for each treatment group were estimated as the proportion of responders, defined as patients with ≥25% reduction in ADHD-RS-IV total score from baseline, and average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Utilities associated with response/non-response and disutilities due to adverse events were applied in the model. Costs included drug and medical service costs and were inflated to 2011 US dollars ($US). Incremental cost/QALY and incremental cost/responder were estimated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying all model parameters, including costs, utilities, and response rate. RESULTS: The target dose of GXR was 0.12 mg/kg/day. In match-adjusted populations with balanced baseline characteristics, patients receiving GXR at the dose of 0.09-0.12(p = 0.0016) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] and 0.075-0.09 mg/kg/day (p = 0.0248) had better efficacy, while those receiving GXR at the dose of 0.046-0.075 mg/kg/day had comparable efficacy (p = 0.0699), compared with patients receiving ATX at the target dose of 1.2 mg/kg/day. In the base case of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), GXR had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $US10 637/QALY and $US853/responder, compared with ATX (incremental costs: $US74; incremental effectiveness: 0.007 QALYs and 86 responders per 1000 patients treated). Results of all univariate sensitivity analyses showed that the model results were robust to changes in model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first application of the novel comparative efficacy method of MAIC to a CEA model. The MAIC results indicate that GXR (0.075-0.12 mg/kg/day) was more effective than ATX (1.2 mg/kg/day) in the trial population. The CEA results indicate that GXR is cost effective compared with ATX for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents.

Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept.

The absence of head-to-head trials is a common challenge in comparative effectiveness research and health technology assessment. Indirect cross-trial treatment comparisons are possible, but can be biased by cross-trial differences in patient characteristics. Using only published aggregate data, adjustment for such biases may be impossible. Although individual patient data (IPD) would permit adjustment, they are rarely available for all trials. However, many researchers have the opportunity to access IPD for trials of one treatment, a new drug for example, but only aggregate data for trials of comparator treatments. We propose a method that leverages all available data in this setting by adjusting average patient characteristics in trials with IPD to match those reported for trials without IPD. Treatment outcomes, including continuous, categorical and censored time-to-event outcomes, can then be compared across balanced trial populations. The proposed method is illustrated by a comparison of adalimumab and etanercept for the treatment of psoriasis. IPD from trials of adalimumab versus placebo (n = 1025) were re-weighted to match the average baseline characteristics reported for a trial of etanercept versus placebo (n = 330). Re-weighting was based on the estimated propensity of enrolment in the adalimumab versus etanercept trials. Before matching, patients in the adalimumab trials had lower mean age, greater prevalence of psoriatic arthritis, less prior use of systemic treatment or phototherapy, and a smaller mean percentage of body surface area affected than patients in the etanercept trial. After matching, these and all other available baseline characteristics were well balanced across trials. Symptom improvements of ≥75% and ≥90% (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] score at week 12) were experienced by an additional 17.2% and 14.8% of adalimumab-treated patients compared with the matched etanercept-treated patients (respectively, both p < 0.001). Mean percentage PASI score improvements from baseline were also greater for adalimumab than for etanercept at weeks 4, 8 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Matching adjustment ensured that this indirect comparison was not biased by differences in mean baseline characteristics across trials, supporting the conclusion that adalimumab was associated with significantly greater symptom reduction than etanercept for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Hospital visits and costs following outpatient treatment of CAP with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin.

BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions (inpatient and emergency room) are a major source of medical costs for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) initially treated in the outpatient setting. Current CAP treatment guidelines do not differentiate between outpatient treatment with levofloxacin and moxifloxacin. OBJECTIVE: Compare health care resource use and medical costs to payers for CAP outpatients initiating treatment with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CAP episodes were identified in the PharMetrics database between 2Q04 and 2Q07 based on: pneumonia diagnosis, chest X-ray and treatment with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin. Subsequent 30-day risk of pneumonia-related hospital visits and 30-day health care costs to payers for levofloxacin vs. moxifloxacin treatment were estimated after adjusting for pre-treatment demographics, health care resource use and pneumonia-specific risk factors using propensity score and exact factor matching. RESULTS: A total of 15,472 levofloxacin- and 6474 moxifloxacin-initiated CAP patients were identified. Among 6352 matched pairs, levofloxacin treatment was associated with a 35% reduction in the odds of pneumonia-related hospital visits (odds ratio = 0.65, P = 0.004), lower per-patient costs for pneumonia-related hospital visits (102 dollars vs. 210 dollars, P = 0.001), lower pneumonia-related total costs (medical services and prescription drugs, 363 dollars vs. 491 dollars, P < 0.001) and lower total costs (1308 dollars vs. 1446 dollars, P < 0.001) vs. moxifloxacin over the 30-day observation period. LIMITATIONS: Although observational analyses of claims data provide large sample sizes and reflect routine care, they do have several inherent limitations. Since randomization of subjects is not possible, adequate statistical techniques must be used to ensure that patient characteristics are well-balanced between treatment groups. In addition, data may be missing or miscoded. CONCLUSIONS: CAP outpatients initiated with levofloxacin generated substantially lower costs to payers compared to matched patients initiated with moxifloxacin. The cost savings for patients initiated with levofloxacin were largely attributable to reduced rates of pneumonia-related hospitalization or ER visits.