Clinical outcomes of adjuvant nivolumab in resected stage III melanoma: comparison of CheckMate 238 trial and real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Nivolumab is approved as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III/IV melanoma based on the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial. This analysis compared outcomes from CheckMate 238 with those from the real-world Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab. MATERIALS: Outcomes included baseline characteristics, overall survival (OS) in the CheckMate 238 cohort (randomization until death or last known alive), and real-world overall survival (rwOS) in the Flatiron Health cohort (nivolumab initiation until death or data cutoff). rwOS was compared with OS using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was combined with the adjusted model to reduce baseline discrepancies. RESULTS: The CheckMate 238 and real-world cohorts included 369 and 452 patients, respectively (median age, 56.0 and 63.0 years; median follow-up, 61.4 vs. 25.5 months). rwOS was not different from OS in the unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 0.92-1.74), adjusted (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.67-1.54), and adjusted IPTW (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.63) analyses. In the adjusted analysis, 2-year OS and rwOS rates were 84%. Median OS and rwOS were not reached. After IPTW, OS and rwOS were not different (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.70-1.64). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, OS in the CheckMate 238 trial was similar to rwOS in the Flatiron Health database after adjustments in patients with resected stage III melanoma (per AJCC-8) treated with adjuvant nivolumab, validating the trial results.

Real-World Patterns and Economic Burden Associated With Treatment Failure With Advanced Therapies in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis.

Background: Some patients lose response during treatment for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to characterize real-world treatment failure patterns and associated economic burdens during use of first-line advanced therapies for UC. Methods: IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases were used to identify adults initiating ≥ 1 advanced therapy for UC (January 1, 2010-September 30, 2019). Treatment failure was defined as augmentation with non-advanced therapy, discontinuation, dose escalation/interval shortening, failure to taper corticosteroids, UC-related surgery, or UC-related urgent care ≤ 12 months after treatment initiation. The index date was the date of treatment failure (treatment failure cohort) or 12 months after treatment initiation (persistent cohort). Treatment failure rates were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses. All-cause and UC-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs 12 months post-index were also assessed. Results: Analysis of treatment failure patterns included data from 6745 patients; HCRU and cost analyses included data from 5302 patients (treatment failure cohort, n = 4295; persistent cohort, n = 1007). In the overall population, 75% experienced treatment failure within the first 12 months (median: 5.1 months). Augmentation with non-advanced therapy (39%) was the most common first treatment failure event. The treatment failure cohort had significantly (P < .001) higher mean costs than the persistent cohort (all-cause, $74 995 vs $56 169; UC-related, $57 096 vs $47 347) mainly attributed to inpatient admissions and outpatient visits. Dose escalation/interval shortening accounted for the highest total costs ($101 668) across treatment failure events. Conclusions: Advanced therapies for moderate-to-severe UC are associated with high rates of treatment failure and significant economic burden. More efficacious and durable treatments are needed.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Real-world safety of first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Real-world adverse event (AE) data are limited for first-line (1L) treatments in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Using Flatiron Health Spotlight data, information for a pre-specified list of AEs was abstracted and described among patients with advanced NSCLC receiving 1L nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI), NIVO + IPI + chemotherapy and other approved immuno-oncology (IO) therapy + chemotherapy combination therapies. Results: Fatigue, pain, dyspnea, weight loss, decreased appetite, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, cough, constipation and rash were the most common AEs. Rates of AEs were generally numerically similar across the three cohorts. The majority of patients received treatment for AEs and approximately one fourth of the patients had hospitalization due to their AEs. Conclusion: The real-world safety experiences of patients treated with 1L NIVO + IPI-based regimens were in general similar to those treated with other approved IO + chemotherapy combination therapies.

Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies boost the immune system to fight cancer cells and have been approved to treat non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The IO combination of nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) is approved to treat NSCLC that has spread to other parts of the body or come back and at least 1% of the tumor cells express a protein called PD-L1; NIVO + IPI is also approved in combination with a short course chemotherapy, independent of tumor PD-L1 expression. While NIVO + IPI-based regimens are generally safe, some patients experienced side effects during the clinical trial. However, there is limited information on the side effects of these treatments in a real-world setting. This study analyzed data on side effects from a de-identified database of patients with advanced NSCLC who were treated with NIVO + IPI, NIVO + IPI + chemotherapy, or other approved IO + chemotherapy combinations based on information obtained from physicians' notes in clinical practice settings. The most common side effects among patients in all groups were tiredness, pain, shortness of breath, weight loss, decreased appetite, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, cough, constipation and rash. The rates at which the side effects occurred were numerically similar regardless of the specific treatment that patients received. Approximately one-quarter of patients in each treatment group were hospitalized because of a side effect. These results show that in a real-world setting, NIVO + IPI-based regimens have similar safety to other IO + chemotherapy combinations when used as a first treatment for NSCLC that has spread or come back.

Safety of Upadacitinib in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Systematic Literature Review of Indirect and Direct Treatment Comparisons of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (nr-axSpA), atopic dermatitis (AD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and Crohn's disease (CD) pose a substantial burden on patients and their quality of life. Upadacitinib is an orally administered, selective, and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor indicated for seven conditions, but data on its safety versus other active treatments are limited. A systematic literature review of indirect and direct treatment comparisons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the safety profile of upadacitinib. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for indirect and direct treatment comparisons of RCTs that (1) included licensed upadacitinib dosages; (2) studied any of the seven conditions; (3) reported any adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, major adverse cardiovascular event, venous thromboembolism, malignancies, infections or serious infections, and death; and (4) were published between January 2018 and August 2022. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. SAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and any AEs were commonly studied. RA was the most studied condition, followed by AD and UC. Most studies (16/25, 64%) reported no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes between upadacitinib and other active treatments (e.g., tumor necrosis factor blockers, interleukin receptor antagonists, integrin receptor antagonists, T cell co-stimulation modulator), or placebo (placebo ± methotrexate or topical corticosteroids). Other studies (9/25, 36%) reported mixed results of no statistically significant difference and either statistically higher (8/25, 32%) or lower rates (1/25, 4%) on upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: Most studies suggested that upadacitinib has no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes compared to active treatments or placebo in patients with RA, PsA, AS, AD, UC, and CD. A few studies reported higher rates, but findings were inconsistent with limited interpretation.

Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction, and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Analysis of Number Needed To Treat and Number Needed To Harm.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab, a programmed cell death protein (PD)-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2021 advanced/metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma, in combination with fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy. In the present study, the number needed to treat (NNT) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR)-and the number needed to harm (NNH) for tolerability outcomes-with nivolumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were determined. METHODS: NNT and NNH were calculated as the reciprocal of the risk difference between the two treatment arms, with the 95% CIs calculated as the reciprocals of the upper and lower bounds of the 95% CI of the risk difference, using data from the CheckMate 649 study. FINDINGS: Among all treated patients, the NNTs for OS over 1 and 2 years were 15.15 and 12.05; for PFS, 10.87 and 19.61; and for ORR over the entire trial period, 8.95. The corresponding NNTs in the subgroup with PD-L1 CPS ≥5 were less. The NNH for grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) over 1 year among all treated patients was 7.02. IMPLICATIONS: The small estimated NNT values in this study suggest that patients would benefit from nivolumab + chemotherapy, and while the NNH for grade ≥3 TRAEs was small, the NNH for any individual TRAE were large or negative.

Comparative Efficacy of Venetoclax-Based Combination Therapies and Other Therapies in Treatment-Naive Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of venetoclax (VEN) + azacitidine (AZA) and VEN + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) compared with AZA, LDAC, and decitabine monotherapies and best supportive care (BSC) in adults with untreated acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review and feasibility assessment was conducted to select phase III randomized controlled trials for inclusion in the NMA. Complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery and overall survival (OS) were compared using a Bayesian fixed-effects NMA. Treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) with higher values indicating a higher likelihood of being effective. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients across 5 trials were included. VEN + LDAC (SUCRA 91.4%) and VEN + AZA (87.5%) were the highest ranked treatments for complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery. VEN + LDAC was associated significantly higher response rates versus AZA (odds ratio 5.64), LDAC (6.39), and BSC (23.28). VEN + AZA was also associated significantly higher response rates than AZA (5.06), LDAC (5.74), and BSC (20.68). In terms of OS, VEN + AZA (SUCRA: 95.2%) and VEN + LDAC (75.9%) were the highest ranked treatments. VEN + AZA was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with AZA (hazard ratio 0.66), LDAC (0.57), and BSC (0.37), and VEN + LDAC was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with LDAC (0.70) and BSC (0.46). CONCLUSIONS: VEN + AZA and VEN + LDAC demonstrated improved efficacy compared with alternative therapies among treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Adverse event costs associated with first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: An analysis of clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab, have demonstrated substantial survival benefits in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is limited evidence on their relative safety profiles and adverse event (AE)-related cost burden. OBJECTIVE: To compare the AE management costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with and without limited chemotherapy with those of chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in a first-line setting among patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: The mean per-patient AE costs were estimated using the incidence of all-cause grade 3/4 AEs with any-grade incidence greater than or equal to 15% and the corresponding costs of AE management in the inpatient setting. AE rates were obtained from individual patient data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA trials for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy and aggregated data from the KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 trials for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and the IMpower130 trial for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy. AE management costs from the third-party payer perspective were estimated based on inpatient medical costs from the 2016 United States Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. All costs were inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were associated with lower per-patient grade 3/4 AE costs compared with chemotherapy ($1,708 and $624 lower over the treatment course, respectively). Compared with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs in patients with nonsquamous histology (difference: -$4,866) and squamous histology (difference: -$3,795), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab with limited chemotherapy also had lower AE costs for both nonsquamous (difference: -$2,800) and squamous (difference: -$2,753) disease. Similarly, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were also associated with lower AE costs ($11,400 and $8,809 lower, respectively) compared with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy among patients with nonsquamous disease. In particular, nivolumab plus ipilimumab without or with limited chemotherapy were associated with much lower AE costs of hematological AEs compared with chemotherapy and other immune checkpoint inhibitor-based treatments in combination with a full course of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy was associated with lower AE management costs compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. The AE cost benefits were largely driven by the lower cost burden for hematological AEs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy. DISCLOSURES This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The sponsor was involved in all aspects of the work and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Stenehjem has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Lubinga was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of the study's conduct and holds stock/options. Drs Betts and Wu are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb for this research.

Impact of benralizumab on asthma exacerbation-related medical healthcare resource utilization and medical costs: results from the ZEPHYR 2 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Benralizumab is a biologic add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations, but data on the associated medical utilization are scarce. This retrospective study evaluated the economic value of benralizumab by analyzing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and medical costs in a large patient population in the US. METHODS: Insurance claims data (11/2016-6/2020) were analyzed. A pre-post design was used to compare asthma exacerbation rates, medical HRU and medical costs in the 12 months pre vs. post index (day after benralizumab initiation). Patients were aged ≥12 years, with ≥2 records of benralizumab and ≥2 asthma exacerbations pre index, and constituted non-mutually exclusive cohorts: biologic-naïve, biologic-experienced (switched from omalizumab or mepolizumab to benralizumab), or with extended follow-up (18 or 24 months). RESULTS: In all cohorts (mean age 51-53 years; 67-70% female; biologic-naïve, N = 1,292; biologic-experienced, N = 349; 18-month follow-up, N = 419; 24-month follow-up, N = 156), benralizumab treatment reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation by 53-68% (p < .001). In the biologic-naïve cohort, inpatient admissions decreased by 58%, emergency department visits by 54%, and outpatient visits by 58% post index (all p < .001), with similar reductions in exacerbation-related medical HRU in other cohorts. Exacerbation-related mean total medical costs decreased by 51% in the biologic-naïve cohort ($4691 pre-index, $2289 post-index), with cost differences ranging from 16% to 64% across other cohorts (prior omalizumab: $2686 to $1600; prior mepolizumab: $5990 to $5008; 18-month: $3636 to $1667; 24-month: $4014 to $1449; all p < .001). Medical HRU and cost reductions were durable, decreasing by 64% in year 1 and 66% in year 2 in the 24 month follow-up cohort. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with benralizumab with prior exacerbations experienced reductions in asthma exacerbations and exacerbation-related medical HRU and medical costs regardless of prior biologic use, with the benefits observed for up to 24 months after treatment initiation.

Benralizumab is a biologic approved as an add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma. Previous real-world studies and clinical trials have shown that benralizumab can reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations and systemic corticosteroid use. However, there is little information on the economic value of benralizumab in real-world patient populations. This study showed that patients with severe asthma in the United States had lower rates of asthma exacerbations after starting treatment with benralizumab. The patients also had fewer asthma exacerbation-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits as well as lower medical costs related to asthma exacerbations compared with before the treatment. These benefits were observed in patients who had never taken and those who had been previously treated with biologic therapies, and for up to 24 months after starting benralizumab treatment. These results show that the clinical value of benralizumab translates into reduced medical utilization for patients with severe asthma.

Real-World Effectiveness Study of Benralizumab for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: ZEPHYR 2.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying eosinophil levels, previous biologic use, and extended follow-up in the United States are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of benralizumab in different asthmatic patient cohorts and its long-term clinical impact. METHODS: Patients with asthma treated with benralizumab from November 2017 to June 2019 with 2 or more exacerbations in the 12 months before benralizumab initiation (index) were included in this pre-post cohort study that used medical, laboratory, and pharmacy US insurance claims. Asthma exacerbation rates in the 12 months pre and post index were compared. Nonmutually exclusive patient cohorts were defined by blood eosinophil counts (<150, ≥150, 150-<300, <300, and ≥300 cells/µL), a switch from another biologic, or follow-up for 18 or 24 months post index. RESULTS: There were 429 patients in the eosinophil cohort, 349 in the biologic-experienced cohort, and 419 in the extended follow-up cohort. In all eosinophil cohort subgroups, the asthma exacerbation rate decreased from 3.10-3.55 per patient-year (PPY) pre index to 1.11-1.72 PPY post index (52%-64% decrease; P < .001). Similar decreases were observed in patients switching from omalizumab (3.25 to 1.25 PPY [62%]) or mepolizumab (3.81 to 1.78 PPY [53%]) to benralizumab and those followed up for 18 months (3.38 to 1.18 PPY [65%]) or 24 months (3.38 to 1.08 PPY [68%]) (all P < .001). In the extended follow-up cohort, 39% and 49% had no exacerbations in the 0 to 12 months and the 12 to 24 months post index, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab achieved significantly improved asthma control in real-world patients with different blood eosinophil counts, including eosinophil counts ranging from less than 150 to greater than or equal to 300 cells/µL, switching from other biologics, or treated for up to 24 months.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Impact on hospitalizations of long-term versus short-term therapy with sodium zirconium cyclosilicate during routine outpatient care of patients with hyperkalemia: the recognize I study.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalemia is associated with increased healthcare resource utilization (HRU). This study evaluated the impact of sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) use on HRU in outpatients with hyperkalemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective noncomparative study using claims data from the HealthVerity warehouse, which included outpatients in the United States who initiated SZC between January and December 2019 (index date) with ≥6 months' continuous coverage before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the index date (total coverage of 12 months). The study aimed to describe HRU with long-term and short-term SZC (defined as >90 and ≤90 days' supply, respectively, during 180 days' follow-up) and identify characteristics associated with long-term versus short-term therapy. RESULTS: Of 1153 patients, 748 (64.9%) received short-term and 405 (35.1%) received long-term therapy. During follow-up, lower proportions of patients on long-term versus short-term therapy had hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations (10.1% vs 15.1%; P < 0.05) and all-cause hospitalizations (22.5% vs 29.3%; P < 0.05). Hyperkalemia-related and all-cause hospitalization proportions were 33.0% and 23.3% lower, respectively. Predictors of long-term therapy included stage 3 chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients with hyperkalemia received long-term SZC therapy. Hyperkalemia-related and all-cause hospitalization proportions were lower with long-term therapy, although further confirmatory studies are needed.

Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years. METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm. RESULTS: This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.

Assessment of the relative effectiveness of erenumab compared with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the available clinical and economic evidence of erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine (CM) and present de-novo indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) based on available clinical trial data. METHODS: We conducted ITCs based on results from the pivotal 295 trial (NCT02066415) of erenumab vs placebo and published aggregate data from the PREEMPT 1 (NCT00156910) and PREEMPT 2 (NCT00168428) trials of onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo. ITCs were conducted for CM patients with and without prior administration of onabotulinumtoxinA and among CM patients with ≥3 prior preventive treatment failures. Efficacy was assessed based on responder rates of ≥50% reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMDs) as well as change from baseline in both MHDs and MMDs. RESULTS: Among patients with CM, 140 mg erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.2 MHD (p = .092) and a reduction of 1.0 MMD (p = .174) compared to onabotulinumtoxinA at Week 12. Among onabotulinumtoxinA-naïve patients, erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.8 MHD (p = .026) and 1.4 MMD (p = .080) at Week 12. Among patients that had received ≥3 prior preventive treatments, the odds ratios comparing erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA were 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MHD (p = .155) and 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MMD (p = .140). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest directional benefits (although not reaching the threshold of statistical significance) associated with erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for the preventive treatment of CM. Evidence from this study may inform healthcare stakeholders in treatment selection and optimization for patients with CM.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

CKD Progression and Economic Burden in Individuals With CKD Associated With Type 2 Diabetes.

Rationale & Objective: To evaluate progression patterns and associated economic outcomes, using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) based on the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk categories, among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Study Design: Patients with T2D and moderate- or high-risk CKD were selected from the Optum electronic health records database (January 2007-December 2019). Progression patterns and post-progression economic outcomes were assessed. Setting & Participants: Adults with T2D and CKD in clinical settings. Predictor: Baseline KDIGO risk categories. Outcomes: Progression to a more severe KDIGO risk category; healthcare resource utilization and medical costs. Analytical Approach: Progression probability was estimated using cumulative incidence. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared across progression groups. Results: Of 269,187 patients (mean age 65.6 years) with T2D and CKD of moderate or high baseline risk, 18.9% progressed to the very high-risk category within 5 years. Among moderate-risk patients, 17.8% of CKD stage G1-A2, 44.0% of stage G2-A2, and 61.3% of stage G3a-A1 patients progressed to a higher KDIGO risk category. Among high-risk patients, 63.9% of stage G3b-A1/G3a-A2 and 56.0% of stage G2-A3 patients progressed to very high risk. Within the same eGFR stage, a higher UACR stage was associated with 4- to 7-times higher risk of progressing to very high risk and faster eGFR decline. Nonprogressors had lower annual medical costs ($16,924) than patients who progressed from moderate risk to high risk ($22,117, P < 0.05), from high risk to very high risk ($32,204, P < 0.05), and from moderate risk to very high risk ($35,092, P < 0.05). Limitations: Infrequent lab testing might have caused lags in identifying progression; medical costs were calculated using unit costs. Conclusions: Patients with T2D and CKD of moderate or high risk per KDIGO risk categories had high probabilities of progression, incurring a substantial economic burden. The results highlight the value of UACR in CKD management.

Geographical variation in kidney function testing and associations with health care costs among patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines recommend at least annual testing of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-creatinine ratio (uACR) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study assessed the adequacy of eGFR and uACR testing in this patient population across the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Observational real-world study. METHODS: Adults with CKD and T2D were identified from the Optum Clinformatics database (2015-2019). The eGFR and uACR tests were assessed nationally and by state. The proportions of tested patients and patients receiving adequate monitoring per clinical practice guidelines were analyzed during the 1-year period after T2D and CKD diagnosis, along with all-cause health care costs. RESULTS: Among 101,057 adults with CKD and T2D, 94.1% had at least 1 eGFR test and 38.7% had at least 1 uACR test over 1 year. Only 20.3% of patients had adequate uACR monitoring; this was much lower than observed for adequate eGFR monitoring (86.6%). The eGFR testing rates were high across states (range, 79.5% [Colorado] to 97.3% [Alabama]); conversely, uACR testing rates were uniformly lower and showed wider variation (range, 14.0% [Maine] to 58.9% [Hawaii]). Mean annual all-cause health care costs were $28,636 and increased with CKD GFR stage. Lower uACR testing rates were associated with higher health care costs at the state level (Pearson r = -0.55; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, uACR testing is underutilized, with large geographical variations in testing rates noted between states. Lower uACR testing rates were associated with higher health care costs. The lack of sufficient uACR testing raises concerns about CKD management in patients with T2D.