Relative efficacy of interventions in the treatment of second-line non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has progressed after first-line treatment has a poor prognosis. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits of alternative treatments to docetaxel. However, information is lacking on which patients benefit the most and what drug or regimen is optimal. We report a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of second-line treatments in all subgroup combinations determined by histology, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Biosciences Information Service (using the Dialog Platform), Cochrane Library, and abstracts from scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published up to September 2015. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Bayesian hierarchical exchangeable NMAs were conducted to calculate mean survival times and relative differences for eight subgroups, using docetaxel as the reference comparator. For OS, the NMA was based on hazard ratios applied to a first-order fractional polynomial model fitted to the reference treatment. For PFS, a second-order fractional polynomial model was fitted to reconstructed patient-level data for the entire network of evidence. RESULTS: The search identified 30 studies containing 17 different treatment regimens. Docetaxel plus ramucirumab was associated with a significant improvement in OS and PFS, relative to docetaxel, regardless of patient type. Docetaxel plus nintedanib showed similar efficacy to docetaxel plus ramucirumab in the nonsquamous populations. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) erlotinib and gefitinib showed superior levels of efficacy in EGFR mutation-positive populations and the one PD-1 immunotherapy (nivolumab) studied showed superior efficacy in the populations exhibiting high PD-L1 expression. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to synthesize evidence of the efficacy of each treatment. Benefits are optimized by targeting specific treatments to individual patients guided by histology, PD-L1 expression, and EGFR mutation status. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42014013780 available at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO ).

Cost Effectiveness of Nusinersen in the Treatment of Patients with Infantile-Onset and Later-Onset Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare neuromuscular disorder with a spectrum of severity related to age at onset and the number of SMN2 gene copies. Infantile-onset (≤ 6 months of age) is the most severe spinal muscular atrophy and is the leading monogenetic cause of infant mortality; patients with later-onset (> 6 months of age) spinal muscular atrophy can survive into adulthood. Nusinersen is a new treatment for spinal muscular atrophy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of nusinersen for the treatment of patients with infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy and later-onset spinal muscular atrophy in Sweden. METHODS: One Markov cohort health-state transition model was developed for each population. The infantile-onset and later-onset models were based on the efficacy results from the ENDEAR phase III trial and the CHERISH phase III trial, respectively. The cost effectiveness of nusinersen in both models was compared with standard of care in Sweden. RESULTS: For a time horizon of 40 years in the infantile-onset model and 80 years in the later-onset model, treatment with nusinersen resulted in 3.86 and 9.54 patient incremental quality-adjusted life-years and 0.02 and 2.39 caregiver incremental quality-adjusted life-years and an incremental cost of 21.9 and 38.0 million SEK (Swedish krona), respectively. These results translated into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (including caregiver quality-adjusted life-years) of 5.64 million SEK (€551,300) and 3.19 million SEK (€311,800) per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the infantile-onset model and later-onset model, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with nusinersen resulted in overall survival and quality-adjusted life-year benefits but with incremental costs above 21 million SEK (€2 million) [mainly associated with maintenance treatment with nusinersen over a patient's lifespan]. Nusinersen was not cost effective when using a willingness-to-pay threshold of 2 million SEK (€195,600), which has been considered in a recent discussion by the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency as a reasonable threshold for rare disease. Nonetheless, nusinersen gained reimbursement in Sweden in 2017 for paediatric patients (below 18 years old) with spinal muscular atrophy type I-IIIa.

Cost-Effectiveness of Olaratumab in Combination with Doxorubicin for Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line treatments for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have changed little for 40 years, and outcomes have been poor. Recently, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration conditionally approved olaratumab in combination with doxorubicin (Olara + Dox) based on a randomized phase II trial that reported a significant 11.8-month improvement in median survival versus single-agent doxorubicin (Dox). The present study investigated the cost-effectiveness of Olara + Dox compared with Dox and five other standard-of-care regimens from the US payer perspective. METHODS: An economic model was constructed to estimate costs and outcomes over patients' lifetimes from start of therapy. Progression-free and overall survival were based on survival analysis of patient-level data and a meta-analysis. Adverse-event rates were based on trials. Costs were from published sources. RESULTS: Olara + Dox resulted in an estimated additional 1.27 life-years (LYs) compared with Dox, with an increase in total expected lifetime costs of $133,653. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated at $105,408 per LY gained; in a fully incremental analysis, all other regimens were dominated (higher costs and lower LYs or a higher ICER). CONCLUSION: Olara + Dox is cost-effective for STS treatment compared with Dox and other standard-of-care regimens at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000 per LY and above.

Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy of Biologics in the Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Biological therapies are increasingly used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To compare the efficacy of biologics in adults with moderately-to-severely active UC, stratified by prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify studies of biologics approved for UC. Network meta-analysis was conducted for endpoints at induction and maintenance. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis of induction treatment for anti-TNF therapy-naïve patients. All biologics were more effective than placebo in inducing clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing. Infliximab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over adalimumab in clinical response (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval (CrI)]: 2.19 [1.35-3.55]), clinical remission (OR [95% CrI]: 2.81 [1.49-5.49]), and mucosal healing (OR [95% CrI]: 2.23 [1.21-4.14]); there were no other significant differences between biologics for induction efficacy. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis of maintenance treatment, two studies rerandomised responder patients at end of induction, and three followed the same patients 'straight through'. To account for design differences, the number of responders at end of induction was assumed to be equivalent to the number rerandomised. Vedolizumab showed significantly different durable clinical response from comparators (OR [95% CrI] infliximab 3.18 [1.14-9.20], golimumab 2.33 [1.04-5.41], and adalimumab 3.96 [1.67-9.84]). In anti-TNF therapy-experienced patients, only vedolizumab and adalimumab could be compared. At induction, no significant differences in efficacy were seen. During maintenance, vedolizumab showed significantly improved rates of mucosal healing versus adalimumab (OR [95% CrI]: 6.72 [1.36-41.0]). CONCLUSIONS: This study expands the understanding of comparative efficacies of biologic treatments for UC, encompassing outcomes and populations not previously studied. All biologic treatments were effective for UC during induction. Vedolizumab demonstrated possible clinical benefits in the maintenance setting versus all comparators, irrespective of prior anti-TNF exposure and after adjusting for differences in study design.