Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (PAITC) of maintenance PARP inhibitor (PARPi) with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (OC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6052-6052
Author(s):  
Robert Hettle ◽  
Charles McCrea ◽  
Chee Khoon Lee ◽  
Richard Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Effective Sample Size ◽  
Chemotherapy Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Treatment

6052 Background: In patients (pts) with newly diagnosed OC, bevacizumab (B), PARPi, and PARPi + B have shown benefit as maintenance treatment options after platinum chemotherapy response. Phase III trials have demonstrated longer median progression-free survival (PFS) with PARPi + B (PAOLA-1, olaparib [O]; NCT02477644) vs placebo (P) + B and with PARPi alone (PRIMA, niraparib [N]; NCT02655016) vs P. As there are no randomized head-to-head trials comparing PARPi + B vs PARPi, or PARPi vs B, we performed indirect treatment comparison across these regimens. Methods: Unanchored PAITC was performed with individual pt data (IPD) from a PAOLA-1 subset comprising pts with stage IV disease, stage III with residual disease after primary surgery, inoperable stage III disease, or any patient who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Propensity weights were used to match the baseline (BL) characteristics of the PRIMA population. PRIMA dataset was reconstructed using published PFS curves. Both datasets were pooled; treatment efficacy was assessed by weighted Cox regression and Kaplan–Meier methods. PAITC was performed in all pts (biomarker unselected) and the homologous recombination repair deficiency positive (HRD+; cut-off 42) subgroup. Results: 595/806 (266/387 HRD+) PAOLA-1 pts were included. After matching, the effective sample size (ESS) for PAOLA-1 was 532 (242 HRD+; weights 0.241–2.37). Weighted BL data were balanced across cohorts. Conclusions: In biomarker-unselected and HRD+ pts, PAITC suggests that adding O to B significantly improved PFS vs. N or B alone. In biomarker-unselected pts, PAITC results show no significant difference in PFS between N and B. In HRD+, improved efficacy with N appears to translate into improved PFS vs. B alone, although follow-up was <2 years (14 vs 22 months, respectively). Results are hypothesis generating and could guide randomized trial design. Clinical trial information: NCT02477644 and NCT02655016. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Abiraterone acetate and docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy in high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China: an indirect treatment comparison and cost analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Hu ◽  
Shuli Qu ◽  
Xingxing Yao ◽  
Chaoyun Li ◽  
Yanjun Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Abiraterone Acetate ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Therapy Costs ◽  
Hormone Sensitive ◽  
Indirect Treatment

Abstract Background To conduct an indirect treatment comparison of patients with high-volume mHSPC and a cost analysis between Abi-ADT and Doc-ADT therapies in China. Methods The Bucher technique for indirect treatment comparison was used. A cost analysis was conducted from both healthcare and patient perspectives. Results The indirect treatment comparison demonstrated no significant difference in PFS for Abi-ADT versus Doc-ADT (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.07). Doc-ADT therapy costs less than Abi-ADT, with potential savings of up to RMB 887,057 per patient from the healthcare perspective and RMB 226,210 per patient from the patient perspective. Conclusions No significant differences in PFS between Doc-ADT and Abi-ADT therapy for patients with high-volume mHSPC. Doc-ADT therapy is a cost-saving alternative to Abi-ADT in China.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab and Benralizumab in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Asthma: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichi Ando ◽  
Akihiko Tanaka ◽  
Hironori Sagara
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Eosinophil Count ◽  
Blood Eosinophil ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Blood Eosinophil Count ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Treatment

No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy and safety between the licensed dosage and administration dosage of dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison to estimate differences in the efficacy and safety between dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma using the Bayesian approach. The primary efficacy endpoint was annual exacerbation rate (AER). A subgroup analysis by blood eosinophil count was also performed. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of any adverse events (AAEs). The results demonstrate that there was no significant difference in the AER between dupilumab and benralizumab in overall patients and the subgroup with the blood eosinophil count of <150. However, the AER was significantly lower in the dupilumab group than in the benralizumab group in the subgroup with a blood eosinophil count of ≥150 but <300, and ≥300 with the rate ratio and 95% credible interval of 0.51 (0.29–0.92) and 0.58 (0.39–0.84), respectively. There was no significant difference in the AAEs between the dupilumab and benralizumab groups. This indirect treatment comparison indicates that dupilumab is superior to benralizumab in patients with inadequately controlled asthma having higher blood eosinophil counts. A direct comparison is required to provide definitive evidence. Systematic Review Registration: UMIN-CTR no. UMIN000036256.

scholarly journals An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of pembrolizumab versus competing regimens for the adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lorenzi ◽  
Stella Arndorfer ◽  
Raquel Aguiar-Ibañez ◽  
Emilie Scherrer ◽  
Frank Xiaoqing Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Indirect Treatment ◽  
Stage Iii Melanoma

Indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy and safety of olaparib 300 mg tablets BID and talazoparib 1 mg once daily in the treatment of patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCA) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12570-e12570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles McCrea ◽  
Robert Hettle
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Treatment

e12570 Background: PARP inhibitor treatment with olaparib or talazoparib has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCA) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analysis was performed to simulate the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative PARP treatment in this setting. Methods: Bayesian fixed effects ITCs of data published for OlympiAD (NCT02000622) and EMBRACA (NCT01945775) was conducted using the gemtc package in R. Efficacy analyses were performed on the primary endpoint of PFS by blinded independent central review. Safety analyses included the odds ratio (OR) of adverse event (AE)-related discontinuations, and common AEs of any grade reported in each study. All analyses compared olaparib with talazoparib. Results: Efficacy analyses show no significant difference in PFS across treatments (PFS hazard ratio of 1.09, 95% credible interval [0.72; 1.65]). Safety analyses predict differences in AEs across PARP treatment, including hematological events, alopecia, nausea and vomiting (Table). No difference in AE-related discontinuations was observed (0.93 [0.25–3.42]). Conclusions: Results of the ITC suggest that olaparib and talazoparib are equally efficacious on PFS, and differ in AE risk profile, with olaparib predicted to have fewer common hematological and alopecia events, but an increased risk of nausea and vomiting versus talazoparib. Observed differences require confirmation in comparative studies. Limitations of the analysis include heterogeneity in study design, reporting of AEs, and mix of chemotherapies used in the control arm of the studies. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of maintenance PARP inhibitor with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110496
Author(s):  
Robert Hettle ◽  
Charles McCrea ◽  
Chee Khoon Lee ◽  
Richard Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Unselected Population ◽  
Indirect Treatment ◽  
Positive Population

Background: In patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, alone or in combination, have shown benefit as maintenance treatment following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, no trials have compared a PARP inhibitor plus bevacizumab versus a PARP inhibitor, or a PARP inhibitor versus bevacizumab. We performed an unanchored population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance treatments for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: Analyses were performed using aggregate data from the PRIMA trial and patient-level data from a subset of patients from the PAOLA-1 trial that met surgery and staging eligibility criteria of PRIMA. Propensity weights were used to match baseline characteristics of the PAOLA-1 subset to those of the PRIMA population. Analysis was performed in overall (biomarker-unselected) and homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD)-positive populations. Results: A total of 595/806 (266/387 HRD-positive) PAOLA-1 patients were included. After matching, the effective sample size for PAOLA-1 was 532 (242 HRD-positive). Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 43% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47–0.69] versus niraparib and by 40% (HR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49–0.74) versus bevacizumab in the biomarker-unselected population and by 43% (HR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41–0.79) and 60% (HR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29–0.55), respectively, in the HRD-positive population. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of maintenance niraparib and bevacizumab arms were comparable in the biomarker-unselected population (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.87–1.32); however, niraparib showed a 30% reduced risk compared with bevacizumab (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51–0.97) in the HRD-positive population. Conclusions: In biomarker-unselected and HRD-positive patients, combination treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment improves PFS for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer compared with either bevacizumab or niraparib alone. Results are hypothesis generating and could guide randomised trial design.

Indirect treatment comparison of olaparib and talazoparib in germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles McCrea ◽  
Robert Hettle ◽  
Poonam Gulati ◽  
Ankush Taneja ◽  
Preety Rajora
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Treatment

Aim: Two poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib are approved for patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Methods: A Bayesian fixed-effects indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analysis was performed to simulate the comparative efficacy (primary outcome of progression-free survival [PFS]) and safety of PARP inhibitor monotherapy. Results: ITC of data from the OlympiAD (olaparib) and EMBRACA (talazoparib) studies suggested no significant difference in efficacy (PFS) between olaparib and talazoparib. However, there were differences in specific adverse events; patients receiving olaparib had a higher rate of nausea and vomiting, while those receiving talazoparib had a higher rate of alopecia and anemia. Discussion: These data support the benefit of the PARP inhibitor class in gBRCAm HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Progression-free survival (PFS) and second PFS (PFS2) by disease stage in patients (pts) with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer receiving bevacizumab (bev) with olaparib/placebo maintenance in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5514-5514
Author(s):  
Patricia Pautier ◽  
Philipp Harter ◽  
Carmela Pisano ◽  
Claire Cropet ◽  
Susana Hernando Polo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Interval Surgery

5514 Background: In the Phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), the addition of maintenance olaparib to bev in pts with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) resulted in a significant PFS benefit, particularly in HRD-positive (HRD+) pts (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33; 95% CI 0.25–0.45) (Ray-Coquard et al. NEJM 2019). We explored efficacy in HRD+ pts by disease stage. Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed, FIGO stage III–IV HGOC in response after platinum-based chemotherapy + bev received bev (15 mg/kg q3w for 15 months [mo]) + either olaparib (300 mg bid for 24 mo) or placebo (pbo). This exploratory analysis evaluated PFS (data cut-off [DCO]: Mar 22 2019) and PFS2 (DCO: Mar 22 2020) in HRD+ pts (tumor BRCA1/ BRCA2 mutation [tBRCAm] or genomic instability score [Myriad myChoice HRD Plus] ≥42) by FIGO stage. Results: 387/806 randomized pts (48%) were HRD+; 272/387 (70%) had stage III disease and 115/387 (30%) had stage IV disease. 153 (56%) HRD+ stage III pts and 61 (53%) HRD+ stage IV pts had a tBRCAm. Among HRD+ stage III pts, 172 (63%) had upfront surgery (51/172 [30%] had residual disease) and 90 (33%) had interval surgery (19/90 [21%] had residual disease); 52 (45%) HRD+ stage IV pts had upfront surgery (34/52 [65%] had residual disease) and 55 (48%) had interval surgery (18/55 [33%] had residual disease). Median follow-up for PFS and PFS2 was respectively 24.8 and 37.2 mo in HRD+ stage III pts and 24.0 and 37.0 mo in HRD+ stage IV pts. Median PFS, PFS2 and HRs are in the Table. Among HRD+ stage III pts, 36-mo PFS2 (olaparib + bev vs pbo + bev) was 74% vs 60%; among HRD+ stage IV pts, 53% vs 30%. Among HRD+ stage III pts with no residual disease after upfront surgery, HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.15 (0.07–0.30) and for PFS2 was 0.22 (0.06–0.67). Among HRD+ stage III pts with residual disease after upfront surgery or who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or HRD+ stage IV pts, HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.38 (0.27–0.53) and PFS2 was 0.68 (0.46–1.03). Conclusions: In the PAOLA-1 study, maintenance olaparib + bev provided a PFS and PFS2 benefit over pbo + bev in HRD+ pts, irrespective of FIGO stage and residual disease after upfront surgery. Clinical trial information: NCT02477644. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document