A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma☆.

BACKGROUND: Approved first-line treatments for patients with BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma include nivolumab (a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) plus ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitor; NIVO+IPI) and the BRAF/MEK inhibitors dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB+TRAM), encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO+BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (VEM+COBI). Results from prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing these treatments have not yet been reported. This analysis evaluated the relative efficacy and safety of NIVO+IPI versus DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified RCTs for DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Individual patient-level data for NIVO+IPI were derived from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (BRAF-mutant cohort) and restricted to match the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the comparator trials. Treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) models. Safety outcomes (grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events) with NIVO+IPI and the comparators were compared. RESULTS: In the Cox proportional hazards analysis, NIVO+IPI showed improved OS compared with DAB+TRAM (HR = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.73), ENCO+BINI (HR = 0.60; CI, 0.42-0.85), and VEM+COBI (HR = 0.50; CI, 0.36-0.70) for the overall study period. In the time-varying analysis, NIVO+IPI was associated with significant improvements in OS and PFS compared with the BRAF/MEK inhibitors 12 months after treatment initiation. There were no significant differences between NIVO+IPI and BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment from 0 to 12 months. Safety outcomes favored DAB+TRAM over NIVO+IPI, whereas NIVO+IPI was comparable to VEM+COBI. CONCLUSION: Results of this MAIC demonstrated durable OS and PFS benefits for patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treated with NIVO+IPI compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, with the greatest benefits noted after 12 months.

Can We Accurately Predict Cost Effectiveness Without Access to Overall Survival Data? The Case Study of Nivolumab in Combination with Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Melanoma in England.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab with ipilimumab (the Regimen) is the first immuno-oncology combination treatment to demonstrate long-term clinical benefit for advanced melanoma patients. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of the Regimen in this population, with and without the availability of overall survival (OS) data. METHODS: A partitioned survival model and a Markov state-transition model were developed to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of the Regimen versus ipilimumab. These models were built with and without the availability of OS data, as only progression-free survival data were available from the head-to-head, phase III trial against ipilimumab at the time of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) submission. Patient utilities and resource use data were sourced from trial data or the literature. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and absolute costs were similar between the models with and without OS data, but the model with OS data generated more than 1 additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) across both treatment arms. In both models, based on list prices, the Regimen was the most cost-effective treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses show that the Regimen is a cost-effective treatment for advanced melanoma patients in England, and methods to overcome the lack of OS can give reasonable estimates of QALYs gained and ICERs.

Correction to: Can We Accurately Predict Cost Effectiveness Without Access to Overall Survival Data? The Case Study of Nivolumab in Combination with Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Melanoma in England.

The second Key Point for Decision Makers, which reads.

Q-TWiST analysis comparing ipilimumab/dacarbazine vs placebo/dacarbazine for patients with stage III/IV melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Study CA184024 was a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study comparing ipilimumab/dacarbazine (DTIC) vs placebo/DTIC in patients with untreated stage III/IV melanoma, which showed that ipilimumab significantly improves survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. The objective of this analysis was to compare the quality-adjusted survival experience among patients in this trial. METHODS: Survival time was partitioned into health states: toxicity, time before progression without toxicity, and relapse until death or end of follow-up. Q-TWiST (quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity of treatment) was calculated as the utility-weighted sum of the mean health state durations. Analyses were repeated over extended follow-up periods. RESULTS: Based on a combination of trial-based and external utility scores, the Q-TWiST difference in this trial was 0.50 months (P=0.0326) favoring ipilimumab after 1 year. The Q-TWiST difference was 1.5 months with 2 years of follow-up (P=0.0091), 2.36 months at 3 years (P=0.005) and 3.28 months at 4 years (P=0.0074). CONCLUSION: During the first year of study, there was little difference between groups in quality-adjusted survival. However, after 2, 3 and 4 years follow-up for patients with extended survival, the benefits of IPI+DTIC vs PLA+DTIC for advanced melanoma continue to accrue.

Societal preference values for advanced melanoma health states in the United Kingdom and Australia.

BACKGROUND: No studies measure preference-based utilities in advanced melanoma that capture both intended clinical response and unintended toxicities associated with treatment. METHODS: Using standard gamble, utilities were elicited from 140 respondents in the United Kingdom and Australia for 13 health states. RESULTS: Preferences decreased with reduced treatment responsiveness and with increasing toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: These general population utilities can be incorporated into treatment-specific cost-effectiveness evaluations.