Systematic literature review of efficacy and safety of first-line maintenance therapy trials in advanced ovarian cancer.

Aim: To review safety and efficacy outcomes in studies of first-line maintenance therapies for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed (27 February 2020) to identify clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and Grade ≥3 adverse events. Results: Overall 50 references met prespecified criteria; 18 studies evaluated 10 different agents, including PARP inhibitors. PFS was an end point in 16 trials and OS in 12 trials. PARP inhibitors reported better PFS hazard ratios (HRs: 0.59-0.68) compared with other classes; no mature OS data were identified. Safety reporting was inconsistent. Conclusion: Reported PFS HRs were better for PARP inhibitors than for other ovarian cancer maintenance therapies; overall survival data remain immature.

This article reports the results from a systematic literature review (SLR), enabling a critical and unbiased comparison of clinical studies, of responses and side effects of first-line maintenance therapies used for advanced ovarian cancer. Overall, this SLR supports the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer as they demonstrated a greater effect on delaying further disease progression than other drug types assessed. However, due to large differences between the clinical studies included (e.g. design of the trial), direct comparisons between first-line maintenance therapies must be made with caution. Healthcare professionals must factor individual patient circumstances when choosing the most appropriate therapy.

Feasibility Study of a Network Meta-Analysis and Unanchored Population-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Niraparib, Olaparib, and Bevacizumab as Maintenance Therapies in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

Selecting a first-line (1L) maintenance option for ovarian cancer is challenging given the variety of therapies, differing trials, and the lack of head-to-head data for angiogenesis and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Thus, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can aid treatment decision making. This study assessed the feasibility of two ITCs, a network meta-analysis (NMA) and a population-adjusted ITC (PAIC), comparing the efficacy of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in the PRIMA trial (NCT02655016) with other 1L maintenance treatments. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to assess differences in trial design, population characteristics, treatment arms, and outcome measures. All 12 trials identified were excluded from the NMA due to the absence of a common comparator and differences in survival measures and/or inclusion criteria. The PAIC comparing PRIMA and PAOLA-1 trials was also not feasible due to differences in inclusion criteria, survival measures, and the previous receipt of chemotherapy/bevacizumab. Neither ITC met recommended guidelines for analysis; the results of such comparisons would not be considered appropriate evidence when selecting 1L maintenance options in ovarian cancer. ITCs in this setting should be performed cautiously, as many factors can preclude objective trial comparisons.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaborem for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae-Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (CRE-KPC) infections in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of vaborem (meropenem-vaborbactam) compared to the best available therapy (BAT) in adult patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae-Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (CRE-KPC) infections from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS). METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for Vaborem compared to BAT in CRE-KPC patients over a 5 year time horizon. The model structure for Vaborem simulated the clinical pathway of patients with a confirmed CRE-KPC infection. Model inputs for clinical effectiveness were sourced from the TANGO II trial, and published literature. Costs, resource use and utility values associated with CRE-KPC infections in the UK were sourced from the British National Formulary, NHS reference costs and published sources. RESULTS: Over a 5 year time horizon, Vaborem use increased total costs by £5165 and increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.366, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,113 per QALY gained. The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of discharge to long-term care (LTC), the annual cost of LTC and the utility of discharge to home. At thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY, the probability of Vaborem being cost-effective compared to BAT was 79.85% and 94.93%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Due to a limited cost impact and increase in patient quality of life, vaborem can be considered as a cost-effective treatment option compared to BAT for adult patients with CRE-KPC infections in the UK.

Budget impact analysis of betrixaban for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) incurs substantial costs to the UK National Health Service (NHS). Betrixaban is approved in the US for VTE prophylaxis with a recommended 35-42 days of treatment. This analysis modeled the budget impact of introducing betrixaban for extended-duration VTE prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE in the UK, where it is not yet licensed. METHODS: The 5-year budget impact of introducing betrixaban into current prophylaxis (low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux) was estimated for the UK NHS. The Phase 3 APEX study provided primary event (VTE, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and death; all-cause or VTE-related) and treatment complications data. Literature informed risk of recurrent events and long-term complications, population, market share, and costs for treatment and management of events. Network meta-analyses informed symptomatic DVT, pulmonary embolism and VTE-related death rates in fondaparinux patients. Deterministic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty. RESULTS: Introducing betrixaban accrued savings of £1,290,000-£23,000,000 in years 1-5. Savings were from reduced primary VTE events, which reduced recurrent events and future complications. All sensitivity analyses showed savings. CONCLUSION: Introducing extended-duration VTE prophylaxis with betrixaban in the UK would accrue substantial savings annually over the next 5 years compared to current prophylaxis. Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01583218.

Niraparib Maintenance Treatment Improves Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (TWiST) Versus Routine Surveillance in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A TWiST Analysis of the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA Trial.

PURPOSE: This study estimated time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) with niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS) in the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated for niraparib and RS by fitting parametric survival distributions to Kaplan-Meier data for 553 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation-gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts. Mean time with toxicity was estimated based on the area under the Kaplan-Meier curve for symptomatic grade 2 or greater fatigue, nausea, and vomiting adverse events (AEs). Time with toxicity was the number of days a patient experienced an AE post-random assignment and before disease progression. TWiST was estimated as the difference between mean PFS and time with toxicity. Uncertainty was explored using alternative PFS estimates and considering all symptomatic grade 2 or greater AEs. RESULTS: In the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean PFS benefit of 3.23 years and 1.44 years, respectively, and a mean time with toxicity of 0.28 years and 0.10 years, respectively, compared with RS. Hence, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean TWiST benefit of 2.95 years and 1.34 years, respectively, compared with RS, which is equivalent to more than four-fold and two-fold increases in mean TWiST between niraparib and RS in the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, respectively. This TWiST benefit was consistent across all sensitivity analyses, including modeling PFS over 5-, 10-, and 15-year time horizons. CONCLUSION: Patients who were treated with niraparib compared with RS experienced increased mean TWiST. Thus, patients who were treated with niraparib in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial experienced more time without symptoms or symptomatic toxicities compared with control.

Effectiveness and safety of betrixaban extended prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism compared with standard-duration prophylaxis intervention in acute medically ill patients: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

Aims: To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis using US- and Europe-approved anticoagulants relative to extended-duration VTE prophylaxis with betrixaban. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), unfractionated heparin (UFH), fondaparinux sodium and placebo were each compared to betrixaban, as standard-duration VTE prophylaxis for hospitalized, non-surgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE. Materials and methods: A systematic literature review was conducted up to June 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized, non-surgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE. Studies that reported the occurrence of VTE events (including death) and, where possible, major bleeding, from treatment initiation to 20-50 days thereafter were retrieved and extracted. A Bayesian fixed effect network meta-analysis was used to estimate efficacy and safety of betrixaban compared with standard-duration VTE prophylaxis. Results: Seven RCTs were analyzed which compared betrixaban, LMWHs, UFH, fondaparinux sodium, or placebo. There were significantly higher odds (median odds [95% credible interval]) of VTE with LMWHs (1.38 [1.12-1.70]), UFH (1.60 [1.05-2.46]), and placebo (2.37 [1.55-3.66]) compared with betrixaban. There were significantly higher odds of VTE-related death with placebo (7.76 [2.14-34.40]) compared with betrixaban. No significant differences were observed for the odds of major bleeding with all comparators, VTE-related death with any active standard-duration VTE prophylaxis, or of VTE with fondaparinux sodium, compared with betrixaban. Limitations and conclusions: In this indirect comparison, betrixaban was shown to be an effective regimen with relative benefits compared with LMWHs and UFH. This indicates that betrixaban could reduce the burden of VTE in at-risk hospitalized patients with acute medical illness who need extended prophylaxis, though without direct comparative evidence, stronger conclusions cannot be drawn.

Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for niraparib versus RS, olaparib, and rucaparib from a US payer perspective. The model considered recurrent OC patients with or without germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut), who were responsive to their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Model health states were: progression-free disease, progressed disease and dead. Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using parametric survival distributions based on ENGOT-OV16/NOVA (niraparib phase III trial), ARIEL3 (rucaparib phase III trial) and Study 19 (olaparib phase II trial). Mean overall survival (OS) benefit was estimated as double the mean PFS benefit based on the relationship between PFS and OS observed in Study 19. Costs included: drug, chemotherapy, monitoring, adverse events, and terminal care. EQ-5D utilities were estimated from trial data. RESULTS: Compared to RS, niraparib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$68,287/QALY and US$108,287/QALY for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. Compared to olaparib and rucaparib, niraparib decreased costs and increased QALYs, with a cost saving of US$8799 and US$22,236 versus olaparib and US$198,708 and US$73,561 versus rucaparib for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib was estimated to be less costly and more effective compared to olaparib and rucaparib, and the ICER fell within an acceptable range compared to RS. Therefore, niraparib may be considered a cost-effective maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent OC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Betrixaban Compared with Enoxaparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Nonsurgical Patients with Acute Medical Illness in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Studies show that the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) continues post-discharge in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness. Betrixaban is the first anticoagulant approved in the United States (US) for VTE prophylaxis extending beyond hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to establish whether betrixaban for VTE prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE in the US is cost-effective compared with enoxaparin. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with betrixaban (35-42 days) compared with enoxaparin (6-14 days) from a US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. A decision tree (DT) estimated primary VTE events, thrombotic events, and treatment complications in the first 3 months based on data from the phase III Acute Medically Ill VTE Prevention with Extended Duration Betrixaban study. A Markov model estimated recurrent events and long-term complication risks from published literature. EuroQoL-5 Dimensions utility data and costs inflated to 2017 US dollars (US$) were from published literature. Results were discounted at 3.0% per annum. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty. RESULTS: Betrixaban dominated enoxaparin, with savings of US$784 and increased QALYs of 0.017 per patient. In addition, betrixaban dominated enoxaparin across all sensitivity analyses, but was most sensitive to utilities and DT probabilities. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that betrixaban was more cost-effective than enoxaparin at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: Betrixaban can be considered cost-effective for nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE, requiring longer VTE prophylaxis from hospitalization through post-discharge.