Real-world safety of first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Aim: Real-world adverse event (AE) data are limited for first-line (1L) treatments in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Using Flatiron Health Spotlight data, information for a pre-specified list of AEs was abstracted and described among patients with advanced NSCLC receiving 1L nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI), NIVO + IPI + chemotherapy and other approved immuno-oncology (IO) therapy + chemotherapy combination therapies. Results: Fatigue, pain, dyspnea, weight loss, decreased appetite, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, cough, constipation and rash were the most common AEs. Rates of AEs were generally numerically similar across the three cohorts. The majority of patients received treatment for AEs and approximately one fourth of the patients had hospitalization due to their AEs. Conclusion: The real-world safety experiences of patients treated with 1L NIVO + IPI-based regimens were in general similar to those treated with other approved IO + chemotherapy combination therapies.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Safety of Upadacitinib in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Systematic Literature Review of Indirect and Direct Treatment Comparisons of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (nr-axSpA), atopic dermatitis (AD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and Crohn's disease (CD) pose a substantial burden on patients and their quality of life. Upadacitinib is an orally administered, selective, and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor indicated for seven conditions, but data on its safety versus other active treatments are limited. A systematic literature review of indirect and direct treatment comparisons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the safety profile of upadacitinib.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for indirect and direct treatment comparisons of RCTs that (1) included licensed upadacitinib dosages; (2) studied any of the seven conditions; (3) reported any adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, major adverse cardiovascular event, venous thromboembolism, malignancies, infections or serious infections, and death; and (4) were published between January 2018 and August 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. SAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and any AEs were commonly studied. RA was the most studied condition, followed by AD and UC. Most studies (16/25, 64%) reported no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes between upadacitinib and other active treatments (e.g., tumor necrosis factor blockers, interleukin receptor antagonists, integrin receptor antagonists, T cell co-stimulation modulator), or placebo (placebo ± methotrexate or topical corticosteroids). Other studies (9/25, 36%) reported mixed results of no statistically significant difference and either statistically higher (8/25, 32%) or lower rates (1/25, 4%) on upadacitinib.

CONCLUSION

Most studies suggested that upadacitinib has no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes compared to active treatments or placebo in patients with RA, PsA, AS, AD, UC, and CD. A few studies reported higher rates, but findings were inconsistent with limited interpretation.

Comparative Efficacy of Venetoclax-Based Combination Therapies and Other Therapies in Treatment-Naive Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of venetoclax (VEN) + azacitidine (AZA) and VEN + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) compared with AZA, LDAC, and decitabine monotherapies and best supportive care (BSC) in adults with untreated acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and feasibility assessment was conducted to select phase III randomized controlled trials for inclusion in the NMA. Complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery and overall survival (OS) were compared using a Bayesian fixed-effects NMA. Treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) with higher values indicating a higher likelihood of being effective.

RESULTS

A total of 1140 patients across 5 trials were included. VEN + LDAC (SUCRA 91.4%) and VEN + AZA (87.5%) were the highest ranked treatments for complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery. VEN + LDAC was associated significantly higher response rates versus AZA (odds ratio 5.64), LDAC (6.39), and BSC (23.28). VEN + AZA was also associated significantly higher response rates than AZA (5.06), LDAC (5.74), and BSC (20.68). In terms of OS, VEN + AZA (SUCRA: 95.2%) and VEN + LDAC (75.9%) were the highest ranked treatments. VEN + AZA was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with AZA (hazard ratio 0.66), LDAC (0.57), and BSC (0.37), and VEN + LDAC was associated with significant improvements in OS compared with LDAC (0.70) and BSC (0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

VEN + AZA and VEN + LDAC demonstrated improved efficacy compared with alternative therapies among treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction, and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Analysis of Number Needed To Treat and Number Needed To Harm

PURPOSE

Nivolumab, a programmed cell death protein (PD)-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2021 advanced/metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma, in combination with fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy. In the present study, the number needed to treat (NNT) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR)-and the number needed to harm (NNH) for tolerability outcomes-with nivolumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were determined.

METHODS

NNT and NNH were calculated as the reciprocal of the risk difference between the two treatment arms, with the 95% CIs calculated as the reciprocals of the upper and lower bounds of the 95% CI of the risk difference, using data from the CheckMate 649 study.

FINDINGS

Among all treated patients, the NNTs for OS over 1 and 2 years were 15.15 and 12.05; for PFS, 10.87 and 19.61; and for ORR over the entire trial period, 8.95. The corresponding NNTs in the subgroup with PD-L1 CPS ≥5 were less. The NNH for grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) over 1 year among all treated patients was 7.02.

IMPLICATIONS

The small estimated NNT values in this study suggest that patients would benefit from nivolumab + chemotherapy, and while the NNH for grade ≥3 TRAEs was small, the NNH for any individual TRAE were large or negative.

Adverse event costs associated with first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: An analysis of clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab, have demonstrated substantial survival benefits in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is limited evidence on their relative safety profiles and adverse event (AE)-related cost burden. OBJECTIVE: To compare the AE management costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with and without limited chemotherapy with those of chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in a first-line setting among patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: The mean per-patient AE costs were estimated using the incidence of all-cause grade 3/4 AEs with any-grade incidence greater than or equal to 15% and the corresponding costs of AE management in the inpatient setting. AE rates were obtained from individual patient data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA trials for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy and aggregated data from the KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 trials for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and the IMpower130 trial for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy. AE management costs from the third-party payer perspective were estimated based on inpatient medical costs from the 2016 United States Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. All costs were inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were associated with lower per-patient grade 3/4 AE costs compared with chemotherapy ($1,708 and $624 lower over the treatment course, respectively). Compared with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs in patients with nonsquamous histology (difference: -$4,866) and squamous histology (difference: -$3,795), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab with limited chemotherapy also had lower AE costs for both nonsquamous (difference: -$2,800) and squamous (difference: -$2,753) disease. Similarly, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were also associated with lower AE costs ($11,400 and $8,809 lower, respectively) compared with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy among patients with nonsquamous disease. In particular, nivolumab plus ipilimumab without or with limited chemotherapy were associated with much lower AE costs of hematological AEs compared with chemotherapy and other immune checkpoint inhibitor-based treatments in combination with a full course of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy was associated with lower AE management costs compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. The AE cost benefits were largely driven by the lower cost burden for hematological AEs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy. DISCLOSURES This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The sponsor was involved in all aspects of the work and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Stenehjem has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Lubinga was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of the study's conduct and holds stock/options. Drs Betts and Wu are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb for this research.

Real-World Effectiveness Study of Benralizumab for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: ZEPHYR 2

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an mAb therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma. Real-world data on its clinical impact in various patient populations such as patients with varying eosinophil levels, previous biologic use, and extended follow-up in the United States are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of benralizumab in different asthmatic patient cohorts and its long-term clinical impact.

METHODS

Patients with asthma treated with benralizumab from November 2017 to June 2019 with 2 or more exacerbations in the 12 months before benralizumab initiation (index) were included in this pre-post cohort study that used medical, laboratory, and pharmacy US insurance claims. Asthma exacerbation rates in the 12 months pre and post index were compared. Nonmutually exclusive patient cohorts were defined by blood eosinophil counts (<150, ≥150, 150-<300, <300, and ≥300 cells/μL), a switch from another biologic, or follow-up for 18 or 24 months post index.

RESULTS

There were 429 patients in the eosinophil cohort, 349 in the biologic-experienced cohort, and 419 in the extended follow-up cohort. In all eosinophil cohort subgroups, the asthma exacerbation rate decreased from 3.10-3.55 per patient-year (PPY) pre index to 1.11-1.72 PPY post index (52%-64% decrease; P < .001). Similar decreases were observed in patients switching from omalizumab (3.25 to 1.25 PPY [62%]) or mepolizumab (3.81 to 1.78 PPY [53%]) to benralizumab and those followed up for 18 months (3.38 to 1.18 PPY [65%]) or 24 months (3.38 to 1.08 PPY [68%]) (all P < .001). In the extended follow-up cohort, 39% and 49% had no exacerbations in the 0 to 12 months and the 12 to 24 months post index, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab achieved significantly improved asthma control in real-world patients with different blood eosinophil counts, including eosinophil counts ranging from less than 150 to greater than or equal to 300 cells/μL, switching from other biologics, or treated for up to 24 months.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426.

INTERVENTION

Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival

BACKGROUND

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm.

RESULTS

This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.

Impact on hospitalizations of long-term versus short-term therapy with sodium zirconium cyclosilicate during routine outpatient care of patients with hyperkalemia: the recognize I study

BACKGROUND

Hyperkalemia is associated with increased healthcare resource utilization (HRU). This study evaluated the impact of sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) use on HRU in outpatients with hyperkalemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective noncomparative study using claims data from the HealthVerity warehouse, which included outpatients in the United States who initiated SZC between January and December 2019 (index date) with ≥6 months' continuous coverage before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the index date (total coverage of 12 months). The study aimed to describe HRU with long-term and short-term SZC (defined as >90 and ≤90 days' supply, respectively, during 180 days' follow-up) and identify characteristics associated with long-term versus short-term therapy.

RESULTS

Of 1153 patients, 748 (64.9%) received short-term and 405 (35.1%) received long-term therapy. During follow-up, lower proportions of patients on long-term versus short-term therapy had hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations (10.1% vs 15.1%; P < 0.05) and all-cause hospitalizations (22.5% vs 29.3%; P < 0.05). Hyperkalemia-related and all-cause hospitalization proportions were 33.0% and 23.3% lower, respectively. Predictors of long-term therapy included stage 3 chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of patients with hyperkalemia received long-term SZC therapy. Hyperkalemia-related and all-cause hospitalization proportions were lower with long-term therapy, although further confirmatory studies are needed.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars.

RESULTS

Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU.

CONCLUSION

Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Assessment of the relative effectiveness of erenumab compared with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To assess the available clinical and economic evidence of erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine (CM) and present de-novo indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) based on available clinical trial data.

METHODS

We conducted ITCs based on results from the pivotal 295 trial (NCT02066415) of erenumab vs placebo and published aggregate data from the PREEMPT 1 (NCT00156910) and PREEMPT 2 (NCT00168428) trials of onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo. ITCs were conducted for CM patients with and without prior administration of onabotulinumtoxinA and among CM patients with ≥3 prior preventive treatment failures. Efficacy was assessed based on responder rates of ≥50% reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMDs) as well as change from baseline in both MHDs and MMDs.

RESULTS

Among patients with CM, 140 mg erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.2 MHD (p = .092) and a reduction of 1.0 MMD (p = .174) compared to onabotulinumtoxinA at Week 12. Among onabotulinumtoxinA-naïve patients, erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.8 MHD (p = .026) and 1.4 MMD (p = .080) at Week 12. Among patients that had received ≥3 prior preventive treatments, the odds ratios comparing erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA were 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MHD (p = .155) and 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MMD (p = .140).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest directional benefits (although not reaching the threshold of statistical significance) associated with erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for the preventive treatment of CM. Evidence from this study may inform healthcare stakeholders in treatment selection and optimization for patients with CM.

Impact of benralizumab on asthma exacerbation-related medical healthcare resource utilization and medical costs: results from the ZEPHYR 2 study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Benralizumab is a biologic add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations, but data on the associated medical utilization are scarce. This retrospective study evaluated the economic value of benralizumab by analyzing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and medical costs in a large patient population in the US.

METHODS

Insurance claims data (11/2016-6/2020) were analyzed. A pre-post design was used to compare asthma exacerbation rates, medical HRU and medical costs in the 12 months pre vs. post index (day after benralizumab initiation). Patients were aged ≥12 years, with ≥2 records of benralizumab and ≥2 asthma exacerbations pre index, and constituted non-mutually exclusive cohorts: biologic-naïve, biologic-experienced (switched from omalizumab or mepolizumab to benralizumab), or with extended follow-up (18 or 24 months).

RESULTS

In all cohorts (mean age 51-53 years; 67-70% female; biologic-naïve, N = 1,292; biologic-experienced, N = 349; 18-month follow-up, N = 419; 24-month follow-up, N = 156), benralizumab treatment reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation by 53-68% (p < .001). In the biologic-naïve cohort, inpatient admissions decreased by 58%, emergency department visits by 54%, and outpatient visits by 58% post index (all p < .001), with similar reductions in exacerbation-related medical HRU in other cohorts. Exacerbation-related mean total medical costs decreased by 51% in the biologic-naïve cohort ($4691 pre-index, $2289 post-index), with cost differences ranging from 16% to 64% across other cohorts (prior omalizumab: $2686 to $1600; prior mepolizumab: $5990 to $5008; 18-month: $3636 to $1667; 24-month: $4014 to $1449; all p < .001). Medical HRU and cost reductions were durable, decreasing by 64% in year 1 and 66% in year 2 in the 24 month follow-up cohort.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with benralizumab with prior exacerbations experienced reductions in asthma exacerbations and exacerbation-related medical HRU and medical costs regardless of prior biologic use, with the benefits observed for up to 24 months after treatment initiation.

Geographical variation in kidney function testing and associations with health care costs among patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Clinical practice guidelines recommend at least annual testing of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-creatinine ratio (uACR) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study assessed the adequacy of eGFR and uACR testing in this patient population across the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational real-world study.

METHODS

Adults with CKD and T2D were identified from the Optum Clinformatics database (2015-2019). The eGFR and uACR tests were assessed nationally and by state. The proportions of tested patients and patients receiving adequate monitoring per clinical practice guidelines were analyzed during the 1-year period after T2D and CKD diagnosis, along with all-cause health care costs.

RESULTS

Among 101,057 adults with CKD and T2D, 94.1% had at least 1 eGFR test and 38.7% had at least 1 uACR test over 1 year. Only 20.3% of patients had adequate uACR monitoring; this was much lower than observed for adequate eGFR monitoring (86.6%). The eGFR testing rates were high across states (range, 79.5% [Colorado] to 97.3% [Alabama]); conversely, uACR testing rates were uniformly lower and showed wider variation (range, 14.0% [Maine] to 58.9% [Hawaii]). Mean annual all-cause health care costs were $28,636 and increased with CKD GFR stage. Lower uACR testing rates were associated with higher health care costs at the state level (Pearson r = -0.55; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, uACR testing is underutilized, with large geographical variations in testing rates noted between states. Lower uACR testing rates were associated with higher health care costs. The lack of sufficient uACR testing raises concerns about CKD management in patients with T2D.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC.

METHODS

Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms.

RESULTS

Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Real-world effectiveness of benralizumab: Results from the ZEPHYR 1 Study

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence characterizing the clinical outcomes and economic impact on patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize patients with severe asthma treated with benralizumab and assess its clinical and economic impact in the United States.

METHODS

A pre-post benralizumab comparison was performed using a large US insurance claims database between November 2016 and November 2019. The primary cohort included patients with asthma aged 12 years or more with 2 or more records of benralizumab. Secondary cohorts included persistent users (6 or more records of benralizumab), patients switching to benralizumab from mepolizumab or omalizumab, and stratified by Medicaid vs non-Medicaid. Exacerbations, concomitant medications, and exacerbation-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared in the 12-month periods pre- and post-benralizumab initiation (index).

RESULTS

Of the 204 patients in the primary cohort, mean age at index was 45.3 years and 68.6% were of female sex. The patients experienced a significant 55% reduction in rates of exacerbations post-benralizumab initiation (3.25 pre-index vs 1.47 post-index per person-year; P < .001), and 41% of the patients had no exacerbations post-benralizumab initiation. The proportion of oral corticosteroid-dependent patients decreased from 82% to 50% (P < .001). Reductions in HCRU were 42%, 46%, and 57% for asthma exacerbation-related inpatient hospitalizations, emergency department, and outpatient visits, respectively (all P < .001). Exacerbation-related costs decreased by $6439 ($13,559 vs $7120; P < .001). Similar results for all outcomes were observed for the persistent cohort, switch cohorts, and Medicaid vs non-Medicaid cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe asthma treated with benralizumab experienced clinical and economic benefits in the real world, as demonstrated by the reduction in exacerbations and HCRU.

Benefit-Risk Analysis of Upadacitinib Compared with Adalimumab in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit-risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk-benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA).

METHODS

Post-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria-PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles.

RESULTS

UPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7-12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9-16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9-15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA.

CONCLUSION

In patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster).

Number needed to treat (NNT) analysis of patients in CheckMate 649 (CM 649): Nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJ/EAC)

307

Background: Globally, GC/GEJ/EAC are one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. Systemic chemotherapy is the standard of care for advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC, but the prognosis is poor. In the CM 649 trial, nivolumab plus chemotherapy (Nivo+Chemo) demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC versus chemotherapy (Chemo) alone. The objective of this study is to estimate the NNTs comparing Nivo+Chemo versus Chemo for OS, progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) among patients in CM 649. Methods: Individual patient-level data from CM 649 were used for this analysis. The trial population included adult patients with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC who received Nivo+Chemo or Chemo alone as their 1L treatment. The analysis was performed in all randomized patients who received at least one dose of the study drug and a subgroup of patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Chemo included either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin) or XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin). NNTs were equal to the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction and were calculated for OS and PFS over the 1-year period and objective response rate (ORR) over the entire trial period. Results: 1,549 patients who received treatment in the CM 649 trial (782 treated with Nivo+Chemo and 767 treated with Chemo) were included in this analysis. Among these 1,549 patients, 933 patients had PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 (468 treated with Nivo+Chemo and 465 treated with Chemo). Among all treated patients, the NNTs (95% confidence interval (CI)) of Nivo+Chemo when compared to chemotherapy were 14.08 (8.31–45.97) and 9.70 (6.59–18.36) for OS and PFS over the 1-year period, and 8.95 (5.95–18.10) for ORR over the entire trial period. Among patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, the NNTs (95% CI) were 9.06 (5.76–21.20) for OS, 6.91 (4.85–12.03) for PFS, and 7.14 (4.75–14.37) for ORR. This analysis shows that for every 100 patients with GC/GEJC/EAC receiving Nivo+Chemo instead of Chemo, there were 7 additional overall survivors (100/NNT of OS) and 10 additional progression-free survivors (100/NNT of PFS) in the 1-year period, and 11 additional patients achieving objective response (100/NNT of ORR) during the entire trial period. Among patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, there were 11 additional overall survivors and 14 additional progression-free survivors in the 1-year period, and 14 additional patients achieving objective response during the entire trial period. Conclusions: NNT analyses showed consistent and meaningful benefits of Nivo+Chemo over Chemo in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. Nivo+Chemo represents a promising 1L treatment for advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116.

Real-World Management of Hyperkalemia in the Emergency Department: An Electronic Medical Record Analysis

Introduction

Hyperkalemia is often managed in the emergency department (ED) and it is important to understand how ED management and post-discharge outcomes vary by hyperkalemia severity. This study was conducted to characterize ED management and post-discharge outcomes across hyperkalemia severities.

Methods

Adults with an ED visit with hyperkalemia (at least one serum potassium lab measure above 5.0 mEq/L) were selected from US electronic medical record data (2012–2018). Patient characteristics, potassium levels, treatments, and monitoring prior to and during the ED visit were compared by hyperkalemia severity (mild [> 5.0–5.5 mEq/L], moderate [> 5.5–6.0], severe [> 6.0]) using unadjusted analyses. Death, immediate inpatient admission, 30-day hyperkalemia recurrence, and 30-day inpatient admission were also assessed by severity.

Results

Of 6222 patients included, 4432 (71.2%) had mild hyperkalemia, 1085 (17.4%) had moderate, and 705 (11.3%) had severe hyperkalemia. Chronic kidney disease (39.9–50.1%) and heart failure (21.6–24.3%) were common. In the ED, electrocardiograms (mild, 56.5%; moderate, 69.6%; severe, 81.0%) and patients with at least two potassium laboratory values increased with severity (15.0%; 40.4%; 75.5%). Among patients with at least two potassium laboratory values, over half of patients (60.4%) had potassium levels ≤ 5.0 mEq/L prior to discharge. Use of potassium-binding treatments (sodium polystyrene sulfonate: mild = 4.1%; moderate = 17.1%; severe = 27.4%), temporizing agents (5.6%; 15.5%; 31.6%), or dialysis (0.4%; 0.8%; 3.0%) increased with severity; treatment at discharge was not common. Death (1.1%; 3.7%; 10.6%), immediate admission to inpatient care (5.8%; 8.7%; 12.7%), 30-day hyperkalemia recurrence (2.9%; 19.0%; 32.5%), 30-day inpatient admission with hyperkalemia (6.5%; 7.9%; 9.3%) also increased with severity.

Conclusion

Patients with moderate and severe hyperkalemia experienced elevated risk of hyperkalemia recurrence and hyperkalemia-related inpatient readmission following discharge from the ED from a descriptive analysis. Future research to assess strategies to reduce hyperkalemia recurrence and inpatient admission in this patient population would be beneficial.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-02017-w.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (NIVO + IPI, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received NIVO + IPI had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with NIVO + IPI was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Medical costs for managing chronic kidney disease and related complications in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To provide cost estimates for chronic kidney disease (CKD) management and major CKD complications among patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of 52,599 adults with CKD and T2D using Optum Clinformatics claims data from 2014 to 2019.

METHODS

Medical costs associated with CKD management, renal replacement therapies (RRTs), major CKD complications (eg, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and hyperkalemia), and death were estimated using generalized estimating equations adjusting for baseline demographics, complications, and medical costs. Costs for CKD management, RRT, and major CKD complications were assessed in 4-month cycles. Mortality costs were assessed in the month before death.

RESULTS

The estimated 4-month CKD management costs ranged from $7725 for stage I to II disease to $11,879 for stage V (without RRT), with high additional costs for dialysis and kidney transplantation ($87,538 and $124,271, respectively). The acute event costs were $31,063 for heart failure, $21,087 for stroke, and $21,016 for myocardial infarction in the first 4 months after the incident event, which all decreased substantially in subsequent 4-month cycles. The acute event costs of atrial fibrillation and hyperkalemia were $30,500 and $31,212 with hospitalization, and $5162 and $1782 without. The costs associated with cardiovascular-related death, renal-related death, and death from other causes were $17,031, $12,605, and $9900, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of CKD and its complications incurs high medical costs for patients with CKD and T2D. Results from this study can be used to quantify the economic profile of emerging treatments and inform decision-making.

Determinants of Hyperkalemia Progression Among Patients with Mild Hyperkalemia

Introduction

The progression of mild hyperkalemia and the predictors of progression have not been well characterized. In this study we aimed to characterize the progression of hyperkalemia and identify the risk factors for hyperkalemia progression.

Methods

Adults with mild hyperkalemia (at least one serum potassium measure > 5.0 and ≤ 5.5 mEq/L) were identified using electronic medical records from the Research Action for Health Network (2012–2018). Progression to moderate-to-severe and progression to severe hyperkalemia were defined as the first occurrences of a serum potassium measure > 5.5 and > 6.0 mEq/L, respectively. Kaplan–Meier analyses were conducted to estimate progression rates for all patients and by pre-specified patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HR) of moderate-to-severe and severe hyperkalemia progression were estimated using Cox models.

Results

Of 35,369 patients with mild hyperkalemia, 16.9% and 8.7% progressed to moderate-to-severe and severe hyperkalemia, respectively. Rates of hyperkalemia progression elevated with the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The highest progression rates were seen in patients with CKD stage 5 (stage 5 vs. no CKD: moderate-to-severe, 50.2% vs. 12.0%; severe, 31.3% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001). Higher progression rates were also observed in patients with heart failure, hypertension, and type II diabetes compared with patients without those conditions (all p < 0.001). The most prominent risk factors were CKD stage 5 (HR of progression to moderate-to-severe hyperkalemia, 3.32 [95% CI 3.03–3.64]; severe, 4.08 [3.55–4.69]), CKD stage 4 (2.19 [1.97–2.43], 2.28 [1.92–2.71]), CKD stage 3 (1.57 [1.46–1.68], 1.65 [1.46–1.87]), type I diabetes (1.37 [1.18–1.61], 1.54 [1.23–1.93]), and serum potassium (1.12 [1.10–1.15], 1.13 [1.10–1.17] per 0.1 mEq/L increase) (all p values < 0.05).

Conclusion

Hyperkalemia progression rates increased significantly with CKD stage and were also higher among patients with higher baseline potassium level, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01925-1.

Prevalence of Metabolic Acidosis Among Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Hyperkalemia

INTRODUCTION

Although hyperkalemia and metabolic acidosis often co-occur in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), the prevalence of metabolic acidosis among patients with CKD and hyperkalemia is understudied. Therefore, we used medical record data from the Research Action for Health Network to estimate this prevalence.

METHODS

Adult patients with CKD stage 3-5, ≥ 1 outpatient potassium value > 5.0 mEq/l, and ≥ 1 outpatient bicarbonate value available were identified. Patients with end stage kidney disease (ESKD) in the prior year were excluded. The prevalence of metabolic acidosis in each calendar year from 2014 to 2017 among patients with CKD and hyperkalemia was estimated using two definitions of hyperkalemia (potassium > 5.0 mEq/l and > 5.5 mEq/l) and metabolic acidosis (bicarbonate < 18 mEq/l and < 22 mEq/l).

RESULTS

In the 2017 patient cohort and among patients with CKD and hyperkalemia, patients with metabolic acidosis were younger (69 versus 74 years), more likely to have advanced CKD (35% versus 13%), and use oral sodium bicarbonate (21% versus 4%) than patients without metabolic acidosis. The prevalence of metabolic acidosis (< 22 mEq/l) ranged from 25 to 29% when hyperkalemia was defined by potassium > 5.0 mEq/l and ranged from 33 to 39% when hyperkalemia was defined by potassium > 5.5 mEq/l.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrated that prevalence estimates of metabolic acidosis varied based on the definition of hyperkalemia and metabolic acidosis utilized.

Classification, Prediction, and Concordance of Cognitive and Functional Progression in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment in the United States: A Latent Class Analysis

Background:

Progression trajectories of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are currently not well understood.

Objective:

To classify patients with incident MCI into different latent classes of progression and identify predictors of progression class.

Methods:

Participants with incident MCI were identified from the US National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (09/2005-02/2019). Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR^®) Dementia Staging Instrument-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score longitudinal trajectories from MCI diagnosis were fitted using growth mixture models. Predictors of progression class were identified using multivariate multinomial logistic regression models; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.

Results:

In total, 21%, 22%, and 57% of participants (N = 830) experienced fast, slow, and no progression on CDR-SB, respectively; for FAQ, these figures were 14%, 23%, and 64%, respectively. CDR-SB and FAQ class membership was concordant for most participants (77%). Older age (≥86 versus≤70 years, OR [95% CI] = 5.26 [1.78–15.54]), one copy of APOE ɛ4 (1.94 [1.08–3.47]), higher baseline CDR-SB (2.46 [1.56–3.88]), lower baseline MMSE (0.85 [0.75–0.97]), and higher baseline FAQ (1.13 [1.02–1.26]) scores were significant predictors of fast progression versus no progression based on CDR-SB (all p < 0.05). Predictors of FAQ class membership were largely similar.

Conclusion:

Approximately a third of participants experienced progression based on CDR-SB or FAQ during the  4-year follow-up period. CDR-SB and FAQ class assignment were concordant for the vast majority of participants. Identified predictors may help the selection of patients at higher risk of progression in future trials.

Inpatient management and post-discharge outcomes of hyperkalemia

OBJECTIVES

Patients with hyperkalemia are commonly treated in the inpatient setting; however, real-world evidence is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe the inpatient management and post-discharge outcomes among patients with hyperkalemia.

METHODS

Electronic medical record data (2012-2018) were used to analyze US adult patients with an inpatient stay with hyperkalemia (≥1 potassium value >5.0mEq/L). Patient characteristics, treatments, and monitoring six months prior to and during the inpatient stay, and hyperkalemia recurrence and inpatient readmissions post-discharge were summarized and compared among patients with mild (>5.0-5.5mEq/L), moderate (>5.5-6.0), and severe (>6.0) hyperkalemia.

RESULTS

Of the 21,793 patients, 69.2% had mild, 19.0% had moderate, and 11.8% had severe hyperkalemia during inpatient care. The most common inpatient treatments were temporizing agents (mild: 28.9%; moderate: 46.0%; severe: 73.0%), diuretics (32.7%; 37.1%; 34.6%), and sodium-polystyrene sulfonate (11.7%; 27.8%; 45.3%). Almost no patients (0.1%) received a potassium binder at discharge. Most patients (86.8%) had their potassium levels return to ≤5.0mEq/L during the inpatient stay. Death during the inpatient stay occurred in 12.3% of mild, 15.5% of moderate, and 19.5% of severe hyperkalemic patients. Within 30 days of discharge, hyperkalemia recurred in 13.3%, 15.4%, and 18.4% of patients with mild, moderate, and severe hyperkalemia, respectively. Additionally, 19.7%, 21.5%, and 19.6% of patients were readmitted to inpatient care within 30 days post-discharge.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with hyperkalemia in the inpatient setting, treatment and normalization of serum potassium levels were common. However, death, readmission, and hyperkalemia recurrence were also fairly common across all cohorts. Future studies examining measures to reduce inpatient death, readmission, and hyperkalemia recurrence among patients with hyperkalemia in inpatient care are warranted.

Efficacy outcomes of nivolumab + cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab + axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC)

4578

Background: Nivolumab in combination with cabozantinib (N+C) has demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS), compared with sunitinib as a first-line (1L) treatment for aRCC in the phase 3 CheckMate (CM) 9ER trial. As there are no head-to-head trials comparing N+C with pembrolizumab in combination with axitinib (P+A), this study compared the efficacy of N+C with P+A as 1L treatment in aRCC. Methods: An MAIC was conducted using individual patient data on N+C (N = 323) from the CM 9ER trial (median follow-up: 23.5 months) and published data on P+A (N = 432) from the KEYNOTE (KN)-426 trialof P+A (median follow-up: 30.6 months). Individual patients within the CM 9ER trial population were reweighted to match the key patient characteristics published in KN-426 trial, including age, gender, previous nephrectomy, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score, and sites of metastasis. After weighting, hazards ratios (HR) of PFS, duration of response (DoR), and OS comparing N+C vs. P+A were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazards models, and ORR was compared using a weighted Wald test. All comparisons were conducted using the corresponding sunitinib arms as an anchor. Results: After weighting, patient characteristics in the CM 9ER trial were comparable to those in the KN-426 trial. In the weighted population, N+C had a median PFS of 19.3 months (95% CI: 15.2, 22.4) compared to a median PFS of 15.7 months (95% CI: 13.7, 20.6) for P+A. Using sunitinib as an anchor arm, N+C was associated with a 30% reduction in risk of progression or death compared to P+A, (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.93; P = 0.015; table). In addition, N+C was associated with numerically, although not statistically, higher improvement in ORR vs sunitinib (difference: 8.4%, 95% CI: -1.7%, 18.4%; P = 0.105) and improved DoR (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.47, 1.31; P = 0.359). Similar OS outcomes were observed for N+C and P+A (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.44; P = 0.940). Conclusions: After adjusting for cross-trial differences, N+C had a more favorable efficacy profile compared to P+A, including statistically significant PFS benefits, numerically improved ORR and DoR, and similar OS.[Table: see text]

Propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab (NIVO) versus placebo (PBO) as adjuvant therapy for resected melanoma: A number needed to treat and overall survival analysis

9572

Background: The CheckMate 238 trial demonstrated that NIVO improved recurrence free survival (RFS) vs. ipilimumab (IPI). The EORTC 18071 trial demonstrated that IPI improved RFS and overall survival (OS) vs. PBO. The current study pooled data from these two trials to indirectly assess the RFS and OS of NIVO vs. PBO and the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for one additional recurrence-free survivor and survivor over 4 years. Methods: Patients with resected AJCC 7th edition stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma from CheckMate 238 (NIVO vs. IPI) and EORTC 18071 (IPI vs. PBO) were pooled together with inverse probability weighting to balance between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. NNTs were calculated for RFS and OS comparing NIVO vs. IPI and PBO over 4 years. To account for improved post-recurrence survival over time, a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for post-recurrence survival in the PBO arm of EORTC 18071 was performed. Results: A total of 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with NIVO, IPI, and PBO, respectively, were included. In the weighted samples, patients treated with NIVO had consistently higher RFS rates than those treated with IPI (HR [95% CI]: 0.69 [0.56, 0.85]) and PBO (HR: 0.49 [0.39, 0.61]). NIVO was associated with similar OS as IPI (HR: 0.80 [0.60, 1.08]) and superior OS compared to PBO (HR: 0.45 [0.33, 0.60]). At 4 years, the weighted RFS rate was 53.1% for NIVO, 41.8% for IPI, and 29.1% for PBO. The NNT to achieve one additional recurrence-free survivor was 4.2 for NIVO vs. PBO and 8.9 for NIVO vs. IPI. The NNT to obtain one additional survivor was 4.8 for NIVO vs. PBO and 22.2 for NIVO vs. IPI. The OS rate for PBO after adjusting for differences in post-recurrence treatments at 4 years was 64.1%, and the corresponding NNT of OS comparing NIVO vs. adjusted PBO was 8.5. Conclusions: In patients with resected AJCC 7th edition stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma, this indirect comparison showed that NIVO improved RFS and OS vs placebo, with OS improvement maintained after adjustment for post-recurrence therapy.[Table: see text]

Treatment patterns in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the era of immunotherapy

Background: Chemotherapy (CT) alone was previously standard first-line (1L) therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but alternative treatments, including immunotherapy (I-O), are now available. Patients & methods: In this retrospective study, adults with stage IV NSCLC who initiated 1L treatment between 1 August 2018 and 31 December 2019 and had ≥2 visits were identified in the Flatiron database. Patients were followed up until 30 June 2020. Baseline characteristics and treatment patterns were described by treatment group: CT, I-O + CT, I-O monotherapy and other. Results: Approximately 20% of patients received 1L CT in the 2018-2019 timeframe studied; these patients tended to have squamous histology and low (≤49%) programmed death ligand-1 expression. Conclusion: A proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC still receive 1L CT despite the availability and widespread use of I-O therapies.

Real-world outcomes of immunotherapy-based regimens in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

First-line (1L) immunotherapy (I-O) has improved outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinical trials and is now routinely used alone or combined with chemotherapy. Although efficacy and safety of I-O therapies have been established in clinical trials, little is known about their performance and long-term efficacy in the real-world setting. We aimed to characterize real-world outcomes for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with 1L I-O therapy in the United States.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with confirmed advanced (stage III-IV) NSCLC who received either 1L I-O monotherapy or single-agent I-O combined with chemotherapy on or after January 1, 2016 were identified from the Flatiron Health database. Primary objectives were to examine overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival. Index date was defined as date of 1L treatment initiation; data cut-off date was June 30, 2020.

RESULTS

Among 4271 patients receiving I-O plus chemotherapy, median OS was 10.6 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 9.3-11.8) months in patients with squamous NSCLC (n=814) and 12.0 (95 % CI, 11.3-12.8) months in those with non-squamous disease (n=3457). Regardless of histology, patients with high (≥50 %) tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression demonstrated longer median OS vs those with low expression. Among 3041 patients receiving I-O monotherapy, median OS was 11.3 (95 % CI, 9.8-12.8) months in patients with squamous NSCLC (n=875) and 14.1 (95 % CI, 12.4-15.8) months in those with non-squamous disease (n=2166). OS benefit appeared to be greatest in the ≥50 % tumor PD-L1 expression group of the non-squamous cohort.

CONCLUSION

Survival estimates were generally lower than those reported in pivotal clinical trials. These findings indicate that there remains room for improvement of real-world survival outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC who receive 1L I-O-based regimens and for identification of subgroups of patients not benefitting from treatment with current I-O regimens.

Comparative safety and benefit-risk profile of biologics and oral treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A network meta-analysis of clinical trial data

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment have not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term (12-16 weeks) and long-term (48-56 weeks) safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of phase II-IV randomized controlled trials of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments was conducted (cutoff: July 1, 2020). Any adverse events (AEs), any serious AEs, and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were compared using Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two and 7, respectively, randomized controlled trials were included in the short- and long-term NMAs, respectively. In the short-term NMA, the rates of any AEs were the lowest for tildrakizumab (posterior median: 46.0%), certolizumab (46.2%), and etanercept (49.1%). The rates of any serious AE were the lowest for certolizumab (0.8%), risankizumab (1.2%), and etanercept (1.6%). The rates of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were the lowest for risankizumab (0.5%), tildrakizumab (1.0%), and guselkumab (1.5%). In the long-term NMA, risankizumab had the lowest rates of all 3 outcomes (67.5%, 4.4%, and 1.0%, respectively) and the most favorable benefit-risk profile.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalizable to real-world populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-interleukin 23 agents were associated with low rates of safety events. Risankizumab had the most favorable benefit-risk profile in the long term.

Network meta-analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the second-line setting for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Aims: To compare the efficacy of nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg with regorafenib 160 mg, cabozantinib 60 mg and nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Materials & methods: Indirect comparison using network meta-analysis and propensity score weighting. Results: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg had significantly higher objective response rate (median 31.2% [95% credible interval: 19.6-44.5%]) than cabozantinib (4.2% [2.0-6.5%]) and regorafenib (4.8% [1.1-8.3%]), and significantly longer overall survival (cabozantinib: hazard ratio: 0.46 [95% credible interval: 0.27-0.79]; regorafenib: 0.56 [0.32-0.97]). Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg had significantly better objective response rate (difference 21.0% [4.5-37.5%]) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.58 [0.35-0.96]) than nivolumab monotherapy. Conclusion: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg had a superior efficacy versus cabozantinib 60 mg, regorafenib 160 mg and nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Comparison of Biologics and Oral Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis: A Meta-analysis

Importance

The clinical benefits of novel treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis are well established, but wide variations exist in patient response across different therapies. In the absence of head-to-head randomized trials, meta-analyses synthesizing data from multiple studies are needed to assess comparative efficacy among psoriasis treatments.

Objective

To estimate the relative short-term and long-term efficacy of biologics and oral agents for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Data Sources

A systematic literature review was conducted on December 4, 2017, and updated on September 17, 2018. The Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register databases were included.

Study Selection

Phase 2, 3, or 4 randomized clinical trials of treatments licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for adults with moderate to severe psoriasis with data on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index assessment of 75%, 90%, and 100% reductions (PASI 75, 90, and 100) at 10 to 16 weeks (short-term efficacy) or 44 to 60 weeks (long-term efficacy) from baseline.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were extracted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate short-term PASI response rates; to account for variation across trials, an ordinal model that adjusted for reference arm response was implemented. The long-term PASI rates were estimated via a traditional meta-analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates at 10 to 16 weeks and 44 to 60 weeks from baseline.

Results

Sixty trials meeting all inclusion criteria were included. At weeks 10 to 16, the highest PASI 90 rates were seen with risankizumab-rzaa (71.6%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 67.5%-75.4%), brodalumab (70.8%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), ixekizumab (70.6%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), and guselkumab (67.3%; 62.5%-71.9%). At weeks 44 to 60, the treatments with the highest PASI 90 rates were risankizumab-rzaa (79.4%, 95% CI, 75.5%-82.9%), guselkumab (76.5%; 95% CI, 72.1%-80.5%), brodalumab (74.0%; 95% CI, 69.3%-78.1%), and ixekizumab (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.9%-77.5%). Findings were consistent for short-term and long-term PASI 75 and 100 responses.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study provides an assessment of the comparative efficacy among treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The meta-analysis suggests that brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab-rzaa were associated with the highest PASI response rates in both short-term and long-term therapy.

Economic burden associated with tuberous sclerosis complex in patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

Data on the economic burden associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) among patients with epilepsy in the United States (US) are limited. This study aimed to assess all-cause and epilepsy-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs in the US among patients with epilepsy and TSC compared with patients with epilepsy but without TSC.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using the Symphony Health Solutions claims database (April 1, 2017-June 30, 2019). Patients with ≥1 medical claim with a diagnosis code representing epilepsy or seizures were assigned to the cohort with TSC if they had ≥1 medical claim for TSC; the remaining patients were assigned to the cohort without TSC. Patients in the cohort with TSC were exactly matched 1:5 on demographics to patients in the cohort without TSC. All-cause and epilepsy-related HRU, medical charges, prescription drug costs, and the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were compared between the matched cohorts over the 1-year study period.

RESULTS

A total of 2028 patients with epilepsy and TSC were matched to 10,140 patients with epilepsy but without TSC. Patients with TSC were more likely to have a diagnosis code for refractory epilepsy (38.7% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001) and more likely to have used an AED (89.5% vs. 71.2%, p < 0.001) than patients without TSC over the study period. On average, patients with TSC received 2.1 distinct AEDs versus 1.3 distinct AEDs among patients without TSC. Compared with patients without TSC, patients with TSC had numerically but not statistically higher incidence rates of all-cause outpatient, clinic, office, and other visits; significantly lower rates of all-cause inpatient and emergency room visits (p < 0.001); and statistically significantly higher incidence rates of epilepsy-related outpatient, inpatient, office, and other visits (p ≤ 0.001). All-cause prescription drug costs were significantly higher among patients with TSC than patients without TSC (cost difference per patient: $14,179, p < 0.001). All-cause medical service charges were numerically higher for patients with TSC, but the differences were not statistically significant (charge difference per patient: $4293 for medical services, p = 0.707). Epilepsy-related costs were significantly higher for patients with TSC; the cost difference per patient was $14,639 for prescription costs (p < 0.001), and the charge difference per patient was $16,838 for medical charges (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study underscore the high epilepsy-related HRU and costs incurred by patients with epilepsy and TSC relative to those incurred by patients with epilepsy but without TSC.

US cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin, bendamustine and rituximab in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin (pola) + bendamustine + rituximab (BR) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma based on the GO29365 trial from a US payer's perspective. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model used progression-free survival and overall survival data from the GO29365 trial. The base case analysis assumed overall survival was informed by progression-free survival; a mixture cure model estimated proportion of long-term survivors. Results: In the base case, pola + BR was cost-effective versus BR at US$35,864 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the findings were robust. Conclusion: Pola + BR is cost-effective versus BR for the treatment of transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the US.

Model of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Emicizumab Prophylaxis Treatment for Persons with Hemophilia A

BACKGROUND

Hemophilia A (HA) can result in bleeding events because of low or absent clotting factor VIII (FVIII). Prophylactic treatment for severe HA includes replacement FVIII infusions and emicizumab, a bispecific factor IXa- and factor X-directed antibody.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an economic model to predict the short- and long-term clinical and economic outcomes of prophylaxis with emicizumab versus short-acting recombinant FVIII among persons with HA in the United States.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare clinical outcomes and costs of emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis among persons with severe HA from U.S. payer and societal perspectives. Patients started prophylaxis at age 1 year in the base case. Mutually exclusive health states considered were "no arthropathy," "arthropathy," "surgery," and "death." Serious adverse events, breakthrough bleeds, and inhibitor development were simulated throughout the modeled time horizon. In addition to the prophylaxis drug costs, patients could incur other direct costs related to breakthrough bleeds treatment, serious adverse events, development of inhibitors, arthropathy, and orthopedic surgery. Indirect costs associated with productivity loss (i.e., missed work or disabilities) were applied for adults. Model inputs were obtained from the HAVEN 3 trial, published literature, and expert opinion. The model used a lifetime horizon, and results for 1 year and 5 years were also reported. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to assess robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, the cumulative number of all treated bleeds and joint bleeds avoided on emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis were 278.2 and 151.7, respectively. Correspondingly, arthropathy (mean age at onset: 12.9 vs. 5.4 years) and FVIII inhibitor development (mean age at development: 13.9 vs. 1.1 years) were delayed. Total direct and indirect costs were lower for emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis for all modeled time horizons ($97,159 vs. $331,610 at 1 year; $603,146 vs. $1,459,496 at 5 years; and $15,238,072 vs. $22,820,281 over a lifetime horizon). The sensitivity analyses indicated that clinical outcomes were sensitive to efficacy inputs, while economic outcomes were driven by the discount rate, dosing schedules, and treatments after inhibitor development. Results for moderate to severe patients were consistent with findings in the severe HA population.

CONCLUSIONS

The model suggests that emicizumab prophylaxis confers additional clinical benefits, resulting in a lower number of bleeding events and delayed onset of arthropathy and inhibitor development across all time assessment horizons. Compared with short-acting recombinant FVIII, emicizumab prophylaxis leads to superior patient outcomes and cost savings from U.S. payer and societal perspectives.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided by Genentech. Raimundo and Patel are employees of Genentech and own stock or stock options. Zhou, Han, Ji, Fang, Zhong, and Betts are employees of Analysis Group, which received consultancy fees from Genentech for conducting this study. Mahajerin received consultancy fees from Genentech for work on this study. Portions of this research were presented as a poster at the 2018 American Society of Hematology Conference; December 1-4, 2018; San Diego, CA.

Prevalence and economic burden of hyperkalemia in the United States Medicare population

Objective: To estimate the prevalence and economic burden of hyperkalemia in the United States (US) Medicare population.Methods: Patients were selected from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries (01 January 2010-31 December 2014) to estimate the prevalence and economic burden of hyperkalemia. The prevalence for each calendar year was calculated as the number of patients with hyperkalemia divided by the total number of eligible patients per year. To estimate the economic burden of hyperkalemia, patients with hyperkalemia (cases) were matched 1:1 to patients without hyperkalemia (controls) on age group, chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage, dialysis treatment, and heart failure. The incremental 30-day and 1-year resource utilization and costs (2016 USD) associated with hyperkalemia were estimated.Results: The estimated prevalence of hyperkalemia was 2.6-2.7% in the overall population and 8.9-9.3% among patients with CKD and/or heart failure. Patients with hyperkalemia had higher 1-year rates of inpatient admissions (1.28 vs. 0.44), outpatient visits (30.48 vs. 23.88), emergency department visits (2.01 vs. 1.17), and skilled nursing facility admissions (0.36 vs. 0.11) than the matched controls (all p < .001). Patients with hyperkalemia incurred on average $7208 higher 30-day costs ($8894 vs. $1685) and $19,348 higher 1-year costs ($34,362 vs. $15,013) than controls (both p < .001). Among patients with CKD and/or heart failure, the 30-day and 1-year total cost differences between cohorts were $7726 ($9906 vs. $2180) and $21,577 ($41,416 vs. $19,839), respectively (both p < .001).Conclusions: Hyperkalemia had an estimated prevalence of 2.6-2.7% in the Medicare population and was associated with markedly high healthcare costs.

Postdischarge Health Care Costs and Readmission in Patients With Hyperkalemia-Related Hospitalizations

Introduction

Limited evidence is available regarding the postdischarge economic and readmission burdens of hyperkalemia.

Methods

Using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare-Supplemental Claims database (January 1, 2010–December 31, 2014), adult patients with a hospitalization with a hyperkalemia diagnosis (ICD-9-CM 276.7, hyperkalemia cohort) were 1:1 matched with patients with a hospitalization without evidence of hyperkalemia (nonhyperkalemia cohort) on age, chronic kidney disease stage, heart failure, dialysis, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor use, and major diagnostic categories of the hospitalization. All-cause health care costs and health care resource utilization measures were compared between cohorts during the 1-year postdischarge period. Postdischarge readmission and length of stay (LOS) were compared between hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations from the hyperkalemia cohort and matched hospitalizations unrelated to hyperkalemia from the nonhyperkalemia cohort.

Results

Patients with hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations (n = 4426) incurred $30,379 (95% confidence interval, $25,423–$35,335) higher 1-year total all-cause costs ($68,861 vs. $38,482) and had higher rates of inpatient admissions (1.0 vs. 0.4), emergency department visits (2.0 vs. 1.2), and outpatient visits (49.6 vs. 39.1) than the nonhyperkalemia cohort during the 1-year postdischarge study period (all P < 0.001). Hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations (n = 5377) were associated with significantly higher readmission rates (within 30 days: 0.15 vs. 0.09; 60 days: 0.25 vs. 0.16; 90 days: 0.36 vs. 0.23; all P < 0.001), longer LOS per readmission (8.1 vs. 7.1 days), and longer total inpatient days (10.5 vs. 5.8 days) compared with hospitalizations unrelated to hyperkalemia (all P < 0.001). Similar trends were observed across comorbidity subgroups.

Conclusion

Hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations were associated with significant economic and readmission burdens during the 1-year postdischarge period.

Comparative Efficacy of JAK Inhibitors for Moderate-To-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with established clinical efficacy. However, little is known about their efficacy compared with each other. This network meta-analysis (NMA) estimated the comparative efficacy of JAK inhibitors currently approved for RA.

Methods

A targeted literature review was conducted for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of three approved JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib) as monotherapy or combination therapy among patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR). Using Bayesian NMA, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses and clinical remission (defined as DAS28-CRP < 2.6) were evaluated separately at 12 and 24 weeks.

Results

Eleven RCTs were identified and included in the NMA. All JAK inhibitors demonstrated significantly better efficacy than csDMARD. Among combination therapies, upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest 12-week ACR50 responses (median [95% credible interval]: 43.4% [33.4%, 54.5%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (38.7% [28.6%, 49.8%]), baricitinib 2 mg (37.1% [25.0%, 50.6%]), and baricitinib 4 mg (36.7%, [27.2%, 47.0%]). Similar results were observed for ACR20/70 and at week 24. Upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD was also found to have the highest clinical remission rates at week 12 (29.8% [16.9%, 47.0%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (24.3%, [12.7%, 40.2%]), baricitinib 4 mg (22.8%, [11.8%, 37.5%]), and baricitinib 2 mg (20.1%, [8.6%, 37.4%]). Similar results were seen at week 24. Among monotherapies, upadacitinib had a higher ACR50 response (38.5% [25.3%, 53.2%]) than tofacitinib (30.4% [18.3%, 45.5%]). The differences in efficacy measures were not statistically significant between the JAK inhibitors.

Conclusions

The NMA found that upadacitinib 15 mg once daily had numerically higher efficacy in terms of ACR response and clinical remission among approved JAK combination therapies and monotherapies for csDMARD-IR patients with RA.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01303-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative efficacy of second-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis

545

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy, and is often advanced at the time of diagnosis. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative efficacy of second-line (2L) immunotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) without biomarker selection for advanced HCC (aHCC), including nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI), cabozantinib (CABO), regorafenib (REG), and placebo (PBO). Methods: Randomized trials for CABO and REG (CELESTIAL and RESORCE) were identified through a literature review and included in the NMA. NIVO (1mg/kg) + IPI (3mg/kg) (from CHECKMATE-040) was linked into the evidence network through a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) vs. the PBO arm of the CELESTIAL trial. The CELESTIAL trial was chosen due to the similar study design and patient population as the CHECKMATE-040 trial. Clinically relevant characteristics were matched, which included age, sex, Barcelona clinic liver cancer stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, α-fetoprotein level, and prior treatments. The NMA included CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and the MAIC results. Investigator-assessed ORR and hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) were compared in the NMA. Results: After matching the baseline characteristics in the MAIC, the ORR of NIVO+IPI was 30.4% and the HR vs. PBO was 0.35. In the NMA, NIVO+IPI had significantly higher ORR (31.2%) compared to TKIs and PBO (REG: 4.8%; CABO: 4.2%; PBO: 1.0%, differences are presented in Table). In addition, NIVO+IPI was associated with significantly prolonged OS vs. TKIs and PBO (HR: NIVO+IPI vs. REG: 0.56; NIVO+IPI vs. CABO: 0.46; NIVO+IPI vs. PBO: 0.35). Conclusions: The NMA showed that NIVO+IPI was associated with significantly higher ORR and prolonged OS compared to TKIs as 2L treatments for aHCC.

[Table: see text]

Number needed to treat and cost per remitter for biologic treatments of Crohn's disease in Japan

Aims: Adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab have been approved for patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in Japan. This study compared the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease based on data from randomized controlled trials.Methods: Data were extracted from four phase 3 clinical trials: CHARM, NCT00445432, ACCENT I, and IM-UNITI. A network meta-analysis (NMA) compared 1-year clinical remission rates in patients who responded to treatment during an induction phase. Remission was defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150. The number needed to treat (NNT) was defined as the inverse of the risk reduction (compared with placebo) estimated from the NMA among initial responders. Cost per incremental remitter was calculated based on the projected per patient drug cost (2018 Japanese Yen [¥]) and the NNT.Results: Among initial responders, the remission rates were 45.2%, 31.9%, 27.4%, 24.1%, and 15.6% for adalimumab 40 mg every other week (EOW), infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks, ustekinumab 90 mg every 8 weeks, ustekinumab 90 mg every 12 weeks, and placebo, respectively. The NNT was the lowest for adalimumab 40 mg EOW. Compared with adalimumab, the incremental cost per remitter was numerically higher for infliximab (¥5,375,470) and statistically higher for ustekinumab 90 mg every 8 weeks and ustekinumab 90 mg every 12 weeks (¥42,788,597 and ¥41,495,543, respectively).Limitations: Indirect comparisons are limited by the availability of suitable clinical evidence and there may be residual heterogeneity that could not be adjusted for.Conclusion: Adalimumab was associated with a numerically lower cost per remitter compared with infliximab and a statistically lower cost per remitter compared with ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in Japan.

Concomitant Use of Psychotropic Medication With Stimulants for the Treatment of ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Retrospective Insurance Claims Study in the United States

Objective: To evaluate annual concomitant psychotropic medication use among stimulant-treated children/adolescents with ADHD. Method: Children/adolescents with ≥1 primary ADHD diagnosis who had received ≥30 days of stimulant medication were identified from insurance claims for each calendar year (2011-2014). Use of 15 psychotropic medications concomitantly with stimulants was evaluated and their prevalence in each year was calculated overall and by medication category for children (6-12 years) and adolescents (13-17 years). Results: Each year 133,354 to 157,303 children and 95,632 to 111,280 adolescents were included. Annual period prevalence of any concomitant psychotropic medication use was 22.9% to 25.0% for children and 25.2% to 28.2% for adolescents. The most common medication categories included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (children: 6.8%-7.9%; adolescents: 12.7%-14.9%), atypical antipsychotics (4.2%-5.4%; 5.3%-6.3%), and guanfacine extended release (5.1%-7.0%; 2.3%-3.6%). Conclusion: Around a quarter of children/adolescents with ADHD were prescribed psychotropic medication concomitant to stimulant treatment, although only 2 of the 15 medication classes studied were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for adjunctive use.

Economic Burden of Switching to Different Biologic Therapies Among Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor-Experienced Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis

Introduction

Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who receive an initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) may switch to another TNFi or a non-TNFi biologic therapy. This study compared the healthcare resource use (HRU), expenditures, and time to discontinuation among TNFi-experienced patients with PsA who switched to different biologic therapies in the United States (US).

Methods

Adults with PsA who discontinued an initial TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, or certolizumab pegol) and switched to another TNFi or a non-TNFi (ustekinumab or secukinumab) were identified in the Symphony Health Solutions database [Quarter (Q)1 2010–Q2 2017]. Eligible patients had claims data activity for ≥ 12 months before (baseline) and after (study period) the switching date. All-cause HRU, costs (2017 US dollars), and time to discontinuation during the study period were compared between patients switching to another TNFi vs. a non-TNFi (index drug). Multivariable regression models adjusted for baseline covariates (index year, age, sex, initial TNFi, comorbidities, baseline HRU, and PsA-related treatment history).

Results

Of 2107 patients switching to another TNFi and 253 switching to a non-TNFi, adalimumab and etanercept were the most common initial TNFi in both cohorts. During the study period, patients switching to another TNFi had significantly fewer dermatologists visits (0.43; p < 0.01) but more rheumatologist visits (1.56, p < 0.01) than patients switching to a non-TNFi. Patients switching to another TNFi vs. a non-TNFi incurred significantly lower total average healthcare expenditures (adjusted difference: $17,625; p < 0.01), driven by lower prescription drug (adjusted difference: $17,172; p < 0.01) and hospitalization expenditures (adjusted difference: $5772; p = 0.04). Patients who switched to another TNFi vs. a non-TNFi continued on their index therapy significantly longer (median time to discontinuation: 8.31 vs. 5.68 months; log-rank p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Patients with PsA who switched to another TNFi had lower total healthcare expenditures and longer persistence compared with patients who switched to a non-TNFi biologic.

Funding

AbbVie.

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended 4-year follow-up and analysis of relative progression-free survival from the randomized ELOQUENT-2 trial

BACKGROUND

The randomized phase 3 ELOQUENT-2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and to date, has the longest follow-up of any monoclonal antibody in patients with RRMM.

METHODS

In this extended 4-year follow-up of the ELOQUENT-2 trial, the coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate as well as the secondary endpoint of overall survival were assessed. In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing Ld-based triplet regimens to guide treatment selection, 4 randomized controlled trials-ELOQUENT-2, ASPIRE, TOURMALINE-MM1, and POLLUX-were indirectly compared to provide insight into the relative efficacy of these regimens in RRMM.

RESULTS

Data at 4 years were consistent with 2- and 3-year follow-up data: ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 29% versus Ld (hazard ratio, 0.71) while maintaining safety. The greatest PFS benefit among the assessed subgroups was observed in patients at the median time or further from diagnosis (≥3.5 years) with 1 prior line of therapy, who had a 44% reduction in the risk of progression/death, and in patients in the high-risk category, who had a 36% reduction in favor of ELd. This regimen also showed a relative PFS benefit that was maintained beyond 50 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustained PFS benefit and long-term safety of ELd at 4 years, similar to those observed at 2 and 3 years, support ELd as a valuable therapeutic option for the long-term treatment of patients with RRMM.