Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy for Patients With Second-Line or Later Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, an anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with chemotherapy, for patients with second-line or later advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS: Evidence for lorlatinib was informed by the single-arm phase I/II trial B7461001. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify OS and PFS data for chemotherapy. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between lorlatinib and chemotherapy (pemetrexed/docetaxel, platinum-based, or systemic therapy) were performed. RESULTS: The SLR identified 3 relevant studies reporting PFS. Lorlatinib was associated with a significant decrease in the hazard of progression versus the 2 types of chemotherapy assessed. For PFS, the MAIC of lorlatinib versus the combined treatment arm of docetaxel or pemetrexed resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.31). When lorlatinib was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy through an MAIC, the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.40 (95% CI 0.29-0.55). An exploratory comparison was performed for OS with evidence for systemic therapy (assumed equivalent to chemotherapy) not identified in the SLR. Lorlatinib provided a significant decrease in hazard of death (OS) versus systemic therapy, with HRs ranging from 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.27) to 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS compared with chemotherapy, although limitations in the analyses were identified. The evidence informing OS comparisons was highly limited but suggested benefit of lorlatinib compared with systemic therapy.

'Twenty years of network meta-analysis: Continuing controversies and recent developments': A health technology assessment perspective.

We respond to some of the methodological issues raised in a recent review of network meta-analysis (NMA). We also provide a health technology developer's perspective and consider the future application of NMA to health technology assessment.

How accurate are the longer-term projections of overall survival for cancer immunotherapy for standard versus more flexible parametric extrapolation methods?

AIMS: To assess the accuracy of standard parametric survival models, spline models, and mixture cure models (MCMs) fitted to overall survival (OS) data available at the time of submission in the NICE HTA process compared with data subsequently made available. METHODS: Standard parametric distributions, spline models, and MCMs were fitted to OS data presented in single technology appraisals (TAs) for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer. For each TA, the estimated survival from the fitted models was compared with Kaplan-Meier (KM) data that were made available following the HTA submission using differences between point estimates and restricted area under the curve (AUC) at both the midpoint and the end of additional follow-up. Differences in interval AUC values (calculated for each 6-month period) were also assessed. RESULTS: Standard parametric survival models and spline models were more likely to underestimate longer-term survival, irrespective of the measure used to assess model accuracy. MCMs were more likely to overestimate survival; however, this was improved in some cases by applying an additional hazard of mortality for "statistically cured" patients. LIMITATIONS: The accuracy of the models was assessed based on much shorter OS data than the period for which extrapolation is needed, which may impact conclusions regarding the most accurate models. The most recent TAs for ICIs have not been captured. CONCLUSIONS: There are no definitive findings that unquestionably support the use of one specific extrapolation technique. Rather, each has the potential to provide accurate or inaccurate extrapolation to longer-term data in certain circumstances, but the added flexibility of more complex models can be justified for treatments, like ICIs, that have extended survival for patients across disease areas. The use of mortality adjustments for "statistically cured" patients allows decision-makers to explore more conservative scenarios in the face of high decision uncertainty.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy as a Second- or Third-Line Treatment in Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)-Positive Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with a second-generation ALK inhibitor or with first- and second-generation ALK inhibitors. We examined the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line+ (2L+ or 3L+) lorlatinib in Sweden, versus chemotherapy. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression free, progressed, or death) was used. Lorlatinib relative efficacy versus chemotherapy was derived using unanchored matching adjusted indirect treatment comparisons from a phase 2 clinical trial. Utility data were derived from the same trial and published studies. Costs (year 2019) were obtained from Swedish national data. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum using a societal perspective (base case). Model robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For 2L+, the average discounted total quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain was 1.29 years. Total incremental costs were Swedish krona (SEK) 731,791, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 566,278 per QALY gained. Non-discounted survival gain amounted to 1.94 years. For 3L+, the average discounted total QALY gain was 1.25 years. Total incremental costs were SEK 754,801, resulting in an ICER of SEK 603,934 per QALY gained. Non-discounted survival gain was 1.88 years. Sensitivity analyses were consistent. CONCLUSIONS: ICERs ranged from SEK 421,000 to SEK 384,066 less than the boundary for a cost-effective treatment for a high-severity disease in Sweden (SEK 988,000), suggesting 2L+ or 3L+ lorlatinib is a cost-effective treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC versus chemotherapy.

Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-analyses to Compare Efficacy of Brexanolone Injection with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Treating Postpartum Depression.

BACKGROUND: Brexanolone injection, the first therapy approved by the US FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (PPD) in adults, has been shown to produce a significantly greater decrease in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score than placebo in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with PPD. OBJECTIVES: Given the rapid effect of brexanolone injection (within 60 h) sustained throughout the length of the trials (30 days), we sought to compare its efficacy data against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the class of antidepressants most commonly prescribed for PPD, using HAM-D and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) outcomes from currently available RCTs. METHODS: We extracted data from 26 studies identified in a systematic literature review of pharmacological and pharmacological/nonpharmacological combination therapies in PPD. Six studies were suitable to form evidence networks through which to perform indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) of HAM-D and EPDS outcomes between brexanolone and SSRIs. Having assessed the comparability and suitability of the available evidence for analysis, we discovered significant heterogeneity in the study designs, most notably in the placebo arms of the trials. We therefore conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between brexanolone and the placebo arms of comparator studies, subsequently using the MAIC results of brexanolone versus placebo, and results for SSRIs versus placebo, to form ITCs of brexanolone versus SSRIs at three separate time points-day 3, week 4 and last observation. ITCs were calculated as the differences in change from baseline (CFB) in HAM-D and, separately, CFB in EPDS, between treatments, and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: For all time points, MAICs showed larger differences in CFB for brexanolone compared with SSRIs. Differences (95% CIs) between brexanolone and SSRIs were 12.79 (8.04-17.53) [day 3], 5.87 (- 1.62 to 13.37) [week 4] and 0.97 (- 6.35 to 8.30) [last observation] for the HAM-D. For the EPDS, the differences in CFB were 7.98 (5.32-10.64) [day 3], 6.35 (3.13-9.57) [week 4] and 4.05 (0.79-7.31) [last observation]. Other analytical approaches are also presented to demonstrate the similarity of results, using a network meta-analysis approach, and the importance of using the MAIC method to control for the important heterogeneity between placebo arms. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the limitations of ITCs and this evidence base, when compared with SSRIs, these analyses suggest that brexanolone demonstrated larger differences in CFB for both patient- and clinician-reported PPD outcomes and at all investigated time points after adjusting for differences between placebos in the included studies.

A review and validation of overall survival extrapolation in health technology assessments of cancer immunotherapy by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: how did the initial best estimate compare to trial data subsequently made available?

BACKGROUND: Validation of overall survival (OS) extrapolations of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) during the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Assessment (STA) process is limited due to data still maturing at the time of submission. Inaccurate extrapolation may lead to inappropriate decision-making. The availability of more mature trial data facilitates a retrospective analysis of the plausibility and validity of initial extrapolations. This study compares these extrapolations to subsequently available longer-term data. METHODS: A systematic search of completed NICE appraisals of ICIs from March 2000 to December 2017 was performed. A targeted search was also undertaken to procure published OS data from the pivotal clinical trials for each identified STA made available post-submission to NICE. Initial Kaplan-Meier curves and associated extrapolations from NICE documentation were extracted to compare the accuracy of OS projections versus the most mature data. RESULTS: The review identified 11 STAs, of which 10 provided OS data upon submission to NICE. The extrapolations undertaken considered parametric or piecewise survival models. Additional data cut-offs provided a mean of 18 months of OS beyond the end of the original data. Initial extrapolations typically under-estimated OS from the most mature data cut-off by 0.4-2.7%, depending on the choice of assessment method and use of the manufacturer- or ERG-preferred extrapolation. CONCLUSION: Long-term extrapolation of OS is required for NICE STAs based on initial immature OS data. The results of this study demonstrate that the initial OS extrapolations employed by manufacturers and ERGs generally predicted OS reasonably well when compared to more mature data (when available), although on average they appeared to underestimate OS. This review and validation shows that, while the choice of OS extrapolation is uncertain, the methods adopted are generally aligned with later-published follow-up data and appear appropriate for informing HTA decisions.