ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most phase 3 clinical trials of systemic therapy for first-line unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have failed, with the exception of SHARP, REFLECT, and IMbrave150. We conducted indirect comparisons of therapies evaluated for first-line HCC treatment. SUMMARY: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for adults with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable HCC and no prior systemic treatment, including atezolizu-mab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, nivolumab, selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT), transarterial chemoembolization, and placebo or best supportive care. Randomized controlled trials published from January 1, 2007, to March 12, 2020, were retrieved from MEDLINE and Embase. Qualitative assessment of heterogeneity evaluated study designs, populations, and outcomes. Indirect comparisons used generalized linear models with random effects within a Bayesian framework and informative priors. We calculated relative efficacy estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and Bayesian posterior probability estimates of atezolizumab-bevacizumab being superior to other treatments. Nine clinical studies with a total of 3,897 participants were identified from 8,783 records and used to build the all-trials evidence network. Indirect comparisons suggested an improved overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib (odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CrI 0.39-1.04]; with 97% Bayesian posterior probability of being superior), nivolumab (0.68 [95% CrI 0.41-1.14]; 94%), sorafenib (0.59 [95% CrI 0.39-0.87]; 99%), SIRT (0.51 [95% CrI 0.32-0.82]; 100%), or placebo/best supportive care (0.40 [95% CrI 0.25-0.64]; 100%). KEY MESSAGES: Within the context of indirect comparisons, analyses of OS favored atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus other treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable HCC.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The recently completed ALEX trial demonstrated that alectinib improved progression-free survival, and delayed time to central nervous system progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the long-term clinical and economic impact of using alectinib vs. crizotinib has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine the potential cost utility of alectinib vs. crizotinib from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. ALEX trial data informed the progression-free and overall survival estimates. Costs included drug treatments and supportive care (central nervous system and non-central nervous system). Utility values were obtained from trial data and literature. Sensitivity analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Treatment with alectinib vs. crizotinib resulted in a gain of 0.91 life-years, 0.87 quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental costs of US$34,151, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$39,312/quality-adjusted life-year. Drug costs and utilities in the progression-free health state were the main drivers of the model in the one-way sensitivity analysis. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, alectinib had a 64% probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/quality adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: Alectinib increased time in the progression-free state and quality-adjusted life-years vs. crizotinib. The marginal cost increase was reflective of longer treatment durations in the progression-free state. Central nervous system-related costs were considerably lower with alectinib. Our results suggest that compared with crizotinib, alectinib may be a cost-effective therapy for treatment-naïve patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.