Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus surveillance for the adjuvant treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma who are at high risk of recurrence: a US payer perspective.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant nivolumab compared with surveillance for the treatment of patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) after radical resection from a US healthcare payer perspective and to investigate the impact of alternative modeling approaches on the cost-effectiveness results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A four-state, semi-Markov model consisting of disease free, local recurrence, distant recurrence, and death health states was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with surveillance over a 30-year time horizon. The model used data from the randomized CheckMate 274 trial (NCT02632409) and published literature to inform transitions among health states, and inputs on cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management. Scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of model structure and key assumptions on the results. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Total expected costs were higher with nivolumab ($162,278) compared with surveillance ($63,027). Nivolumab was associated with improved survival (1.61 life-years gained compared with surveillance) and an incremental gain of 0.98 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Although total treatment costs were higher for nivolumab, cost offsets were observed because of delayed or avoided recurrences and deaths experienced with nivolumab compared with observation. The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were $61,462/life-year and $100,930/QALY. LIMITATIONS: At the time of analysis, CheckMate 274 had limited follow-up on disease-free survival and no overall survival data. The limited evidence necessitated assumptions on modeling survival after each type of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective option for adjuvant treatment of MIUC for patients who are at high risk of recurrence after undergoing radical resection in the United States. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, the cost-effectiveness conclusions remained consistent across the scenario and sensitivity analyses conducted.

Challenges, considerations, and approaches for developing a cost-effectiveness model for the adjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma: with a spotlight on nivolumab versus placebo.

AIMS: To present alternative approaches related to both structural assumptions and data sources for the development of a decision analytic model for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant nivolumab compared with surveillance in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) after radical resection. METHODS AND RESULTS: Alternative approaches related to both structural assumptions and data sources are presented to address challenges and data gaps, as well as discussion of strengths and limitations of each approach. Specifically, challenges and considerations related to the following are presented: (1) selection of a modeling approach (partitioned survival model or state transition model) given the available evidence, (2) choice of health state structure (three- or four-state) to model disease progression and subsequent therapy, (3) modeling of outcomes from subsequent therapy using tunnel states to account for time-dependent transition probabilities or absorbing health states with one-off costs and outcomes applied, and (4) methods for modeling health-state transitions in a setting where treatment has curative intent and available survival data are immature. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple considerations must be taken into account when developing an economic model for new, emerging oncology treatments in early lines of therapy, all of which can affect the model's overall ability to estimate (quality-adjusted) survival benefits over a lifetime horizon. This paper identifies a series of key structural and analytic considerations regarding modeling of nivolumab treatment in the adjuvant MIUC setting. Several alternative approaches with regard to structure and data have been included in a flexible cost-effectiveness model so the impact of the alternative approaches on model results can be explored. The impact of these alternative approaches on cost-effectiveness results are presented in a companion article. Our findings may also help inform the development of future models for other treatments and settings in early-stage cancer.

Patient Preferences for Adjuvant Treatment in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment.

Purpose: The evolving treatment landscape in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma creates challenges for clinicians and patients in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Here, we aimed to understand adjuvant treatment preferences among patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection, including tradeoffs between efficacy outcomes and toxicity risks. Patients and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study utilizing a discrete choice experiment was conducted across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany via a web-based survey. Patients ≥18 years of age who self-reported as having been diagnosed with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were included. Patients indicated their preferences between hypothetical treatment profiles varying in eight attributes relating to efficacy, regimen, and side effects. Preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression; relative attribute importance estimates were calculated. Results: Overall, 207 patients were included (age ≥56 years, 65.7%; male, 54.1%). Patients chose adjuvant treatment 91.2% of the time vs no treatment. Prolonging overall survival from 25 to 78 months was most important, followed by reducing serious side effect risks. Increasing disease-free survival from 12 to 24 months was more important than decreasing risks of fatigue from 54% to 15% and nausea from 53% to 7%. Treatment with the shortest dosing regimen was more important for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy; prolonging overall survival was more important than reducing the risk of a serious side effect in non-US patients; the opposite was found in the United States. Conclusion: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection preferred adjuvant treatment over no treatment regardless of side effects. Patients prioritized overall survival improvements followed by a reduced side effect profile.

Erratum to 'Lipid Treatment and Goal Attainment Characteristics among Persons with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States' [American Journal of Preventive Cardiology 1C (2020) 100010].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpc.2020.100010.].

US Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Insurance Claims-Based Report.

Background Current American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation. We assessed the concordance between healthcare provider real-world practice and current guidelines with respect to first-line AAD rhythm management. Methods and Results Administrative claims data from the deidentified Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database were used. Patients were included if they were initiated on an AAD in 2015 to 2016, had 1 year of continuous data availability before their first AAD pharmacy claim, and had a diagnosis for atrial fibrillation within that period. Concordance was assessed by comparing the AAD initiated by the healthcare provider against guideline recommendations for first-line treatment, given the presence of heart failure, coronary artery disease, both, or neither (as determined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision [ICD-9 and ICD-10] codes). Concordance was also assessed by provider type using Medicare taxonomy codes. For the 15 445 patients included, 51% of healthcare providers initiated AAD treatments with amiodarone, 18% flecainide, 15% sotalol, 8% dronedarone, 5% propafenone, and 2% dofetilide. The overall rate of guideline concordance was 61%, with differences by provider type: 67% for electrophysiologists, 61% for cardiologists, and 60% for others (internal medicine, etc). Conclusions There continues to be a sizable gap in concordance between practice and guidelines in first-line rhythm management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Further research is needed to identify possible explanations for non-guideline-recommended use of AADs, in addition to enhanced AAD educational strategies for practitioners.

Lipid treatment and goal attainment characteristics among persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: National estimates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the United States (US) are scarce, especially for patients grouped by cardiovascular risk, lipid-lowering therapy use, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The objective of this study was to estimate the size of the ASCVD population, including the subgroup at very high risk for recurrent events as defined by the 2018 Multi-Society Cholesterol Guidelines. METHODS: Patient-level data from the Truven MarketScan Research Database were used and extrapolated to approximate national figures based on known national demographic and ASCVD prevalence numbers. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including LDL-C levels and lipid-lowering therapy use, were captured. RESULTS: The extrapolated prevalence of ASCVD in 2014 was 18.3 million, of whom 690,524 had an acute coronary syndrome event in the past year. An estimated 41.4% of patients with ASCVD had diabetes, 44.9% had polyvascular disease, and 23.8% had multiple cardiovascular events. A third of those with ASCVD were estimated to be at very high risk for subsequent events per the 2018 Multi-Society Cholesterol Guidelines. Of those with ASCVD, 74.2% were estimated to have an LDL-C level of ≥70 â€‹md/dL, and more than half of these patients were neither on statins nor ezetimibe. Only 9.2% of patients with ASCVD and LDL-C ≥70 â€‹mg/dL were on a high-intensity statin. CONCLUSIONS: The underutilization of lipid-lowering therapies in general, and in particular the relatively low usage of high-intensity statins among patients with uncontrolled LDL-C (including those at very high risk), suggests that eligible patients for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor therapy may not be as numerous as previously estimated.

Lipid-Lowering Efficacy of Ezetimibe in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), especially those with recent (< 1 year) acute coronary syndrome (ACS), are at high risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. This risk can be reduced by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. A comprehensive meta-analysis on the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe is lacking. This study attempts to address this gap. METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe in the ASCVD population was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications from database inception to August 2018 and for conference abstracts from 2015 to August 2018. Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe in the ASCVD population and the recent ACS subgroup. RESULTS: In total, 12 studies were eligible for the meta-analyses. Treatment with combination ezetimibe plus statin therapy showed greater absolute LDL-C reduction than statin monotherapy (mean difference - 21.86 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 26.56 to - 17.17; p < 0.0001) after 6 months of treatment (or at a timepoint closest to 6 months). Similarly, in patients with recent ACS, combination ezetimibe plus statin therapy was favorable compared with statin monotherapy (mean treatment difference - 19.19 mg/dL; 95% CI - 25.22 to - 13.16; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe, when added to statin therapy, provided a modest additional reduction in LDL-C compared with statin monotherapy. However, this may not be sufficient for some patients with ASCVD who have especially high LDL-C levels despite optimal statin therapy.

Real-world utilization patterns of systemic immunosuppressants among US adult patients with atopic dermatitis.

At the time of this study, prior to the introduction of biologics in the US, systemic therapies used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis included off-label immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. Immunosuppressant therapy is associated with a substantial risk of side-effects, therefore needing clinical monitoring, and is likely to incur a significant healthcare burden for patients and payers. This retrospective cohort study based on claims data measured immunosuppressant use and its associated burden among US adult patients with atopic dermatitis covered under commercial or Medicare Supplemental insurance from January 01, 2010, to September 30, 2015. Overall, based on age, gender, region, and index year, 4201 control patients with atopic dermatitis without immunosuppressant use were matched with 4204 patients treated with immunosuppressants. The majority (68.5%) of patients using immunosuppressants were non-persistent with immunosuppressant treatment during the 12-month follow-up period after a mean (standard deviation) of 88.1 (70.7) days of immunosuppressant use; 72.3% required systemic steroid rescue treatment. Immunosuppressant users had higher incidence of immunosuppressant-related clinical events than controls; in addition, a larger proportion of immunosuppressant users versus controls developed cancer (0.28% vs 0.14%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Healthcare utilization and costs associated with clinical events and monitoring were also higher for immunosuppressant users compared with controls (total costs, $9516 vs $1630, respectively; P < 0.0001; monitoring costs, $363 vs $54, respectively; P < 0.0001). This study revealed that patients treated with systemic immunosuppressants often require systemic steroids or changes to treatment. The increase in immunosuppressant-related clinical events, including the need for increased monitoring with immunosuppressant treatment, compared with controls demonstrates a substantial treatment burden and highlights the unmet need for more effective long-term therapies for atopic dermatitis with improved safety profiles and reduced monitoring requirements.