A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study

Extending the dosing intervals of nivolumab: model-based simulations in unselected cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Reducing nivolumab dose intensity could increase patients' life quality and decrease the financial burden while maintaining efficacy. The aims of this study were to develop a population PK model of nivolumab based on data from unselected metastatic cancer patients and to simulate extended-interval regimens allowing to maintain minimal effective plasma concentrations (MEPC).

METHODS

Concentration-time data (992 plasma nivolumab concentrations, 364 patients) were modeled using a two-compartment model with linear elimination clearance in Monolix software. Extended-interval regimens allowing to maintain steady-state trough concentrations (Cmin,ss) above the MEPC of 2.5 mg/L or 1.5 mg/L in >90% of patients were simulated.

RESULTS

Increasing 3-times the dosing interval from 240 mg every two weeks (Q2W) to Q6W and 2-times from 480 mg Q4W to Q8W resulted in Cmin,ss above 2.5 mg/L in 95.8% and 95.4% of patients, respectively. 240 mg Q8W and 480 mg Q10W resulted in Cmin,ss above 1.5 mg/L in 91.0% and 91.8% of patients, respectively. Selection of a 240 mg Q6W regimen would decrease by 3-fold the annual treatment costs compared to standard regimen of 240 mg Q2W (from 78,744€ to 26,248€ in France).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials are warranted to confirm the non-inferiority of extended-interval compared to standard regimen.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in treating metastatic urothelial cancer

Objectives: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) is an important treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients. A lot of clinical evidence proved the survival benefits of ICI, but cost-effectiveness of the treatment remains unclear. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the ICIs treatment in different sequences among mUC patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed mUC patients who had been treated at our hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. These patients received chemotherapy with or without ICI treatment (Pembrolizumab, Atezolizumab, Nivolumab, Durvalumab, or Avelumab). The patients were divided into three different groups: receiving chemotherapy alone, receiving a combination of first-line ICI and chemotherapy (ICI combination therapy), and receiving chemotherapy as the first-line treatment followed by second-line ICI therapy (Subsequent ICI therapy). The primary endpoint was cost per life day, while lifetime medical costs and overall survival were also evaluated. Results: The 74 enrolled patients had a median age of 67.0 years, with 62.2% being male. Of these patients, 23 had received chemotherapy only, while the remaining patients had received combined therapy with ICI in either first-line or as subsequent agents (37 patients had ever received atezolizumab, 18 pembrolizumab, 1 Durvalumab, 1 Nivolumab, and 1 Avelumab separately.). Fifty-five patients (74.3%, 55/74) received cisplatin amongst all the patients who underwent chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 27.5 months (95% CI, 5.2-49.9) in the first-line ICI combination therapy group, and 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.1-10.8) in the chemotherapy only. Median overall survival for the subsequent ICI therapy group was not reached. The median lifetime cost after metastatic UC diagnosis was USD 31,221. The subsequent ICI therapy group had significantly higher costs when compared with the ICI combination therapy group (155.8 USD per day, [IQR 99.0 to 220.5] v 97.8 USD per day, [IQR 60.8 to 159.19], p = 0.026). Higher insurance reimbursement expenses for the subsequent ICI therapy group were observed when compared with the ICI combination therapy group. Conclusion: Our real-world data suggests that first line use of ICI combined with chemotherapy demonstrates better cost-effectiveness and similar survival outcomes for mUC patients, when compared with subsequent ICI therapy after chemotherapy.

The Financial Burden of Guideline-recommended Cancer Medications for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Bladder cancer is a significant global health concern owing to its prevalence, negative impact on quality of life, and high treatment costs. Treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) traditionally relies on platinum-based chemotherapy regimens. However, clinical trial results have led to the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as viable treatment options. We assessed the escalating costs and economic viability of mUC treatment guidelines in Europe. We used a pragmatic approach that involved: (1) collection of the costs of the recommended medications in the five most populous European countries; (2) conversion of the costs into international dollars to account for differences in purchasing power parity among countries; (3) evaluation of the cost trends over time; and (4) comparison of the medication costs to World Health Organization thresholds. Introduction of ICIs in European guidelines substantially increased the cost of medications for mUC. Intriguingly, important differences across European countries emerged: the annual cost of medications was twofold higher in Italy than in France and the UK. Despite limitations, our study sheds light on the escalating costs and economic challenges of mUC treatment, and highlights the need for assessments of sustainable and cost-effective management approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the costs of treatments for metastatic bladder cancer and found that costs have been rising over time, especially with the introduction of new immune therapies, with notable differences among European countries. While these new treatments improve patient outcomes, they also come with a high price tag, which could strain health care budgets. Our results suggest that cost-effectiveness studies will be essential in determining the best and most sustainable treatment strategies in the future.

Killing a fly with a sledgehammer: Atezolizumab exposure in real-world lung cancer patients

Atezolizumab is an anti-PDL1 approved for treating lung cancer. A threshold of 6 μg/mL in plasma has been associated with target engagement. The extent to which patients could be overexposed with the standard 1200 mg q3w dosing remains unknown. Here, we monitored atezolizumab peak and trough levels in 27 real-world patients with lung cancer as part of routine therapeutic drug monitoring. Individual pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were calculated using a population approach and optimal dosing-intervals were simulated with respect to the target trough levels. No patient had plasma levels below 6 μg/mL. The results showed that the mean trough level after the first treatment was 78.3 ± 17 μg/mL, that is, 13 times above the target concentration. The overall response rate was 55.5%. Low-grade immune-related adverse events was observed in 37% of patients. No relationship was found between exposure metrics of atezolizumab (i.e., minimum plasma concentration, maximum plasma concentration, and area under the curve) and pharmacodynamic end points (i.e., efficacy and toxicity). Further simulations suggest that the dosing interval could be extended from 21 days to 49 up to 136 days (mean: 85.7 days, i.e., q12w), while ensuring plasma levels still above the 6 μg/mL target threshold. This observational, real-world study suggests that the standard 1200 mg q3w fixed-dose regimen of atezolizumab results in significant overexposure in all the patients. This was not associated with increased side effects. As plasma levels largely exceed pharmacologically active concentrations, interindividual variability in PK parameters did not impact efficacy. Our data suggest that dosing intervals could be markedly extended with respect to the target threshold associated with efficacy.