Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus relatlimab versus nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma: RELATIVITY-047 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 trial, a novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) of nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA; a programmed death-1 and a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 inhibitor, respectively) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma (median follow-up, 13.2 months) with stable health-related quality of life (HRQoL), although grade three or four treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were more frequent with the combination. Updated HRQoL results (median follow-up, 19.3 months) are presented. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive intravenous NIVO + RELA (480 mg and 160 mg, respectively) or NIVO (480 mg) every 4 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Melanoma (FACT-M) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, before dosing at each treatment cycle, and at follow-up (posttreatment) visits. RESULTS: Consistent with the initial analysis, HRQoL remained stable with NIVO + RELA on treatment and was similar to that with NIVO. Mean changes from baseline did not exceed clinically meaningful thresholds. HRQoL results were consistent across instruments and scales/subscales. Despite an increased rate of grade three or four TRAEs with NIVO + RELA versus NIVO, the proportion of patients reporting that they were bothered 'quite a bit' or 'very much' by TRAEs was low and comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: Results from the RELATIVITY-047 trial show that the PFS benefit with NIVO + RELA FDC over NIVO was obtained with stable patient-reported HRQoL, supporting NIVO + RELA as a first-line treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma.

Real-World nivolumab dosing patterns and safety outcomes in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real-world data on this regimen are limited in this setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3-10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%-60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing 'significant' TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well-documented safety of weight-based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma.

Cost-Utility of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Melanoma in the United States: An Analysis Using Long-Term Overall Survival Data from Checkmate 067.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective. METHODS: This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted. RESULTS: NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY.

Heterogeneity in Survival with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Its Implications for Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study in Advanced Melanoma.

Background: Survival heterogeneity and limited trial follow-up present challenges for estimating lifetime benefits of oncology therapies. This study used CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505) extended follow-up data to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric and flexible models in estimating the long-term overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor combination) in advanced melanoma. Methods: Six sets of survival models (standard parametric, piecewise, cubic spline, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models) were independently fitted to overall survival data for treatments in CheckMate 067 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab) using successive data cuts (28, 40, 52, and 60 mo). Standard parametric models allow survival extrapolation in the absence of a complex hazard. Piecewise and cubic spline models allow additional flexibility in fitting the hazard function. Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provide flexibility by explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity. Sixty-month follow-up data, external ipilimumab data, and clinical expert opinion were used to evaluate model estimation accuracy. Lifetime survival projections were compared using a 5% discount rate. Results: Standard parametric, piecewise, and cubic spline models underestimated overall survival at 60 mo for the 28-mo data cut. Compared with other models, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate long-term overall survival estimates versus external data, higher mean survival benefit over 20 y for the 28-mo data cut, and more consistent 20-y mean overall survival estimates across data cuts. Conclusion: This case study demonstrates that survival models explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity showed greater accuracy for early data cuts than standard parametric models did, consistent with similar immune checkpoint inhibitor survival validation studies in advanced melanoma. Research is required to assess generalizability to other tumors and disease stages. Highlights: Given that short clinical trial follow-up periods and survival heterogeneity introduce uncertainty in the health technology assessment of oncology therapies, this study evaluated the suitability of conventional parametric survival modeling approaches as compared with more flexible models in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have the potential to provide lasting survival benefits.This study used extended follow-up data from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505) to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models in comparison with more flexible methods for estimating the long-term survival benefit of the immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate estimates of long-term overall survival versus external data than other models tested.In this case study with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in advanced melanoma, extrapolation models that explicitly incorporate differences in cancer survival between observed or latent subgroups showed greater accuracy with both early and later data cuts than other approaches did.

Overall survival in the real-world and clinical trials: a case study validating external controls in advanced melanoma.

Aims: We assessed the suitability of real-world data (RWD) as an external control for analysis of overall survival (OS) compared with clinical trial data (CTD) in advanced melanoma. Methods: OS among adults receiving ipilimumab for advanced melanoma was compared between trials (CTD group) and the Flatiron Health database (RWD group) using Cox models. Adjusted analyses accounted for differences in baseline factors; missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. Results: After adjusting for baseline factors and accounting for missingness, OS was similar in the CTD (n = 241) versus RWD groups (n = 816; hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.75-1.26). Conclusion: Flatiron Health data is suitable to construct external control groups for OS in advanced melanoma trials after adjusting for baseline factors and missing data.

Clinical trials are the gold standard for measuring the efficacy and safety of new treatments. Comparisons between clinical trials and external controls drawn from real-world data are potentially valuable ­ especially when randomized trials are not available or feasible ­ but carry important risks of bias stemming from differences across populations, care settings and measurement of patient characteristics and outcomes. As a case study, we assessed the suitability of a particular real-world database (the Flatiron Health Database) for analyzing overall survival among patients in clinical trials of treatments for metastatic melanoma. Challenges included differences in patient baseline prognostic factors across populations, including high proportions with missing information in real-world data. After accounting for these differences, we observed similar survival between patients receiving ipilimumab monotherapy in clinical trials and in real-world data. We conclude that real-world external controls can be suitable for metastatic melanoma.

Treatment-free survival over extended follow-up of patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in CheckMate 067.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-free survival (TFS) characterizes disease control after discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) until subsequent therapy or death. We previously evaluated TFS in a pooled analysis of the CheckMate 067 and CheckMate 069 trials of the ICIs nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or in combination, in patients with advanced melanoma after minimum follow-up of 36 months. This analysis investigated TFS differences between treatments in CheckMate 067 after a minimum follow-up of 60 months, and their relation to overall survival (OS) differences. METHODS: Data were from 937 patients who initiated treatment (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or ipilimumab) in CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505). TFS was defined as the area between the Kaplan-Meier curves for time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, each measured from randomization. TFS was partitioned as time with and without toxicity. Toxicity included persistent and late-onset grade ≥2 select treatment-related adverse events (ie, those of potential immunologic etiology). The area between Kaplan-Meier curves was estimated by the difference in 60-month restricted-mean times of the endpoints. Between-group differences were estimated with bootstrapped 95% CIs. RESULTS: At 60 months from randomization, 39%, 24%, and 11% of patients assigned to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, respectively, had survived and were treatment-free. The 60-month mean TFS was approximately twice as long with the combination (19.7 months) than with nivolumab (9.9 months; absolute difference, 9.8 (95% CI 6.7 to 12.8)) or ipilimumab (11.9 months; absolute difference, 7.8 (95% CI 4.6 to 11.0)). In the respective groups, mean TFS represented 33% (8% with and 25% without toxicity), 17% (2% and 14%), and 20% (3% and 17%) of the 60-month period. Compared with 36-month estimates, mean TFS over the 60-month period represented slightly greater percentages of time in the nivolumab-containing regimen groups and a lesser percentage in the ipilimumab group. TFS differences between the combination and either monotherapy increased with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Along with improved long-term OS with the nivolumab-containing regimens versus ipilimumab, TFS without toxicity was sustained with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus either monotherapy, demonstrating larger between-group differences with extended follow-up.

Indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (an anti-programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. METHODS: An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. RESULTS: Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40-0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. CONCLUSION: This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma.

Long-term real-world experience with ipilimumab and non-ipilimumab therapies in advanced melanoma: the IMAGE study.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies. METHODS: IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti-programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab-treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab-treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913.

Comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab versus other treatments in adults with resected melanoma: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary. RESULTS: Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Nivolumab in Adjuvant Treatment of Melanoma in France.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the current study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatment with nivolumab relative to clinically relevant comparators in adult patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection from a French societal perspective. METHODS: The comparators were observation, low-dose interferon and pembrolizumab. A subgroup analysis was carried out in patients with BRAF mutation, adding dabrafenib plus trametinib. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to project costs and health benefits over a 20-year time horizon. Extrapolation for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was carried out using spline-based models. Because of the immaturity of OS data in pivotal trials for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, a predictive model of OS treatment effect based on RFS effect was developed using a correlation equation. Health state utilities and adverse events disutilities were derived from the CheckMate 238 trial and literature. Costs were estimated in 2019 euros. The model's primary outcome was efficiency frontier. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: Observation, low-dose interferon and nivolumab were on the efficiency frontier. The incremental cost-utility ratio of nivolumab versus low-dose interferon (closest therapy on the efficiency frontier) was €37,886/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis reported an 80% probability of nivolumab being a cost-effective strategy for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €52,000/QALY. In the subgroup with BRAF mutation, the efficiency frontier was not changed by the addition of dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a cost-effective strategy as adjuvant treatment in adult patients with surgically resected melanoma in France.

Evaluating the potential of relapse-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in the adjuvant therapy of melanoma with checkpoint inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Recent changes in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma have raised interest in confirming relapse-free survival (RFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS). METHODS: We explore this issue with the meta-analytic framework, using individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 trial of ipilimumab and published results from other adjuvant trials. RESULTS: The individual patient data analysis results at a median follow-up of 5.3 years showed a strong association between RFS and OS at the patient level (ρ = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.87) and a moderate association at the trial level (R2 = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.08-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The trial-level association previously observed in interferon-based trials appeared to be maintained when the EORTC 18071 results were added to a regression analysis using published results from other trials. More data from adjuvant trials are required to confirm the strength of association between RFS and OS in this setting.

Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained long-term overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Healthcare cost comparison analysis of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab versus nivolumab monotherapy and ipilimumab monotherapy in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage. METHODS: Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period. RESULTS: The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).

Clinical and economic benefits of extended treatment with apixaban for the treatment and prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in Canada.

Background and objective Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with long-term clinical and economic burden. Clinical guidelines generally recommend at least 3 months of anticoagulation, but, in clinical practice, concerns over bleeding risk often limit extended treatment. Apixaban was studied for extended VTE treatment in the AMPLIFY-EXT trial, demonstrating superiority to placebo in VTE reduction without increasing risk of major bleeding. This study assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of extending treatment with apixaban when clinical equipoise exists compared to standard of care with enoxaparin/warfarin and other novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) for the treatment and prevention of recurrent VTE in Canada. Methods A Markov model was developed to follow patients with VTE over their lifetimes. Efficacy and safety for apixaban and enoxaparin/warfarin were based on AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT, while relative efficacy to other NOACs was synthesized by network meta-analysis (NMA). Dosages for NOACs and enoxaparin/warfarin were based on their respective trials and were given up to 18 months and up to 6 months, followed by no treatment, respectively. Patient quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on published studies, and costs for resource utilization were from a Ministry of Health perspective, expressed as 2014 CAD ($). Results Extended treatment with apixaban compared to enoxaparin/warfarin resulted in fewer recurrent VTEs, VTE-related deaths, and bleeding events, but at slightly increased cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $4828 per QALY gained. Compared to other NOACs, apixaban had the fewest bleeding events, similar recurrent VTE events, and the lowest overall cost, which was driven by the strong bleeding profile. In scenario analyses of acute and lifetime treatments, apixaban was cost-effective against all strategies. Conclusions Extended treatment with apixaban can offer substantial clinical benefits and is a cost-effective alternative to enoxaparin/warfarin and other NOACs.

Depression and mortality in the visually-impaired, community-dwelling, elderly population of Quebec.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of visual impairment (VI) on the risk of depression or death in the community-dwelling elderly population. METHODS: A population-based, retrospective fixed cohort study was conducted in the community-dwelling elderly (age > or = 65 years) outpatient population of Quebec. The cohort was assembled through the Quebec medical services database and consisted of the 5063 patients aged > or = 65 years who received a diagnosis of VI during the years 2000-2004. The reference cohort consisted of 16 932 elderly subjects who were randomly selected among members of the public drug programme. The outcome variables were depression and death. The main independent variable was VI and covariates included age, gender, chronic disease score, fracture and diabetes. RESULTS: Controlling for covariates, VI was associated with an increased risk of depression although the effect was not modified by severity (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.66 for severe VI; HR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.69 for moderate VI). Visual impairment was associated with an increased risk of mortality; patients with moderate vision loss had a higher risk of death (HR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.55-1.87) than those with severe vision loss (HR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: Given the ageing of the population, VI in elderly subjects is becoming a public health concern. These findings enhance the need to detect and treat VI in order to improve the quality of life and to prevent premature mortality in the elderly population.

Integrating feedback from a clinical data warehouse into practice organisation.

A patient oriented hospital information system (ARIANE) was inaugurated at the Sherbrooke University hospital (CHUS) in 1990 and a clinical data warehouse (CDW) completed 2004. The CDW is updated from ARIANE every 24h and includes ICD discharge diagnosis data, visit DRG and SNOMED encoding. The data is encrypted on storage. Data is accessed according to institutional approval. To facilitate data access two levels of tool have been made accessible using a web-browser. The first level consists of a 'dashboard' that has a defined design and enables a set of pre-determined dynamic queries about a patient population. This level can be operated with minimal training. The second level uses a convivial database query tool, which requires some prior training. Two prototype dashboards have been designed and evaluated for acceptability. The first for the emergency department enables analysis of patient occupancy. The second for the biochemistry department enables quality assurance evaluation. In most cases worldwide the clinical data warehouse is only beginning to be exploited, often impeded by lack of connection between different enterprise databases. Our CDW is expected rapidly to create a culture change so that clinical practice can be continuously evaluated using compiled data readily available from the electronic health record/hospital information system.

When is bioavailable testosterone a redundant test in the diagnosis of hypogonadism in men?

OBJECTIVES: Total testosterone (TT) is frequently prescribed with an SHBG and/or free or bioavailable testosterone measurement. Our objective was to identify a TT range for which subsequent SHBG measurement/calculation adds no additional clinical information. DESIGN AND METHODS: Study data were composed of 3955 sets of TT, SHBG and calculated bioavailable testosterone (cBAT) results from unscreened ambulatory male subjects, aged 18-99. RESULTS: 90% of mismatches between TT and cBAT were observed with TT levels between 6.5 and 13.0 nmol/L, with only slight age variation and no important change with albumin level. SHBG measurement restricted to male patients with TT between 6.5 and 13.0 nmol/L should enable reagent cost savings of over 55%. CONCLUSION: We suggest that a TT level below 6.5 nmol/L or above 13.0 nmol/L provides sufficient useful information for ruling out hypogonadism in ambulatory adult males. This strategy of BAT testing should lead to significant time and cost savings.