Shannon Cope

Progression-free survival with fulvestrant 500 mg and alternative endocrine therapies as second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis with parametric survival models.

BACKGROUND Ouwens et al. and Jansen have presented methods for (network) meta-analysis of survival data by using a multidimensional treatment effect as an alternative to the synthesis of constant hazards ratios, which allow for a better fit to the data and the expected survival of competing interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. However, results may be sensitive to the assumed underlying survival function. OBJECTIVE To estimate the expected progression-free survival (PFS) for fulvestrant 500 mg versus alternative hormonal therapies for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who relapsed previously by means of a network meta-analysis of currently available randomized controlled trials using alternative underlying survival functions. METHODS Eleven randomized controlled trials were included that evaluated fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 3), fulvestrant 250 mg (n = 5), fulvestrant 250 mg loading dose (n = 3), anastrozole 1 mg (n = 3), megestrol acetate (n = 4), letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 3), letrozole 0.5 mg (n = 3), and exemestane (n = 2). PFS percentages and numbers at risk were derived from Kaplan-Meier curves and combined by means of Bayesian network meta-analysis on the basis of the difference in the shape and scale parameters of the Weibull, log-normal, and log-logistic parametric survival functions. RESULTS The log-normal distribution provided the best fit, suggesting that the proportional hazard assumption was not valid. Based on the difference in expected PFS, it was found that fulvestrant 500 mg is more efficacious than fulvestrant 250 mg, megestrol acetate, and anastrozole (-5.73 months; 95% credible interval [CrI]-10.67,-1.67). Expected PFS for fulvestrant 500 mg ranged from 10.87 (95% CrI 9.21, 13.07) to 17.02 (95% CrI 13.33, 22.02) months for the Weibull versus log-logistic distribution. CONCLUSIONS Fulvestrant 500 mg is expected to be more efficacious than fulvestrant 250 mg, megestrol acetate, and anastrozole 1 mg and at least as efficacious as exemestane and letrozole 2.5 mg in terms of PFS among postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer after failure on endocrine therapy. The findings were not sensitive to the distribution, although the expected PFS varied substantially, emphasizing the importance of performing sensitivity analyses.

Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol 75 μg relative to alternative bronchodilators in COPD: A study level and a patient level network meta-analysis

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75 μg once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the indacaterol trial program and aggregate data (AD) identified from a systematic review of RCTs.Methods22 RCTs were included in the AD analysis that evaluated: indacaterol 75 μg (n = 2 studies), indacaterol 150 μg n = 5 (i.e. salmeterol 50 μg) (n = 5), indacaterol 300 μg (n = 2), tiotropium 18 μg (n = 10), salmeterol 50 μg (n = 7), and formoterol 12 μg (n = 4). All of the studies except for one head-to-head comparison (tiotropium vs. salmeterol) were placebo controlled. Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 12. The AD from all trials was analysed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. In a separate analysis, the IPD available from the 6 indacaterol RCTs was analysed in a NMA. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included in both analyses to improve similarity of the trials.ResultsAll interventions compared were more efficacious than placebo regarding FEV1 at 12 weeks. Indacaterol 75 μg is expected to result in a comparable FEV1 at 12 weeks to tiotropium and salmeterol based on both IPD and AD analyses. In comparison to formoterol, the IPD and AD results indicate indacaterol 75 μg is more efficacious (IPD = 0.07 L difference; 95%Credible Interval (CrI) 0.02 to 0.11; AD = 0.05 L difference; 95%CrI 0.01; 0.09). In terms of SGRQ total score at 12 weeks, indacaterol 75 μg and formoterol were more efficacious than placebo, whereas for tiotropium and salmeterol the credible intervals included zero for the AD results only (tiotropium: -2.99 points improvement versus placebo; 95%CrI −6.48 to 0.43; salmeterol:-2.52; 95%CrI: -5.34; 0.44). Both IPD and AD results suggest that indacaterol 75 μg is expected to be comparable to all active treatments.ConclusionsBased on a synthesis of currently available AD RCT evidence as well as an IPD network meta-analysis of six RCTs, indacaterol 75 μg is expected to be at least as efficacious as formoterol and comparable to tiotropium and salmeterol regarding FEV1. Furthermore, indacaterol 75 μg shows comparable level of improvement in health-related quality of life to tiotropium, salmeterol, and formoterol, as measured by the SGRQ.

Comparative efficacy of indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus fixed-dose combinations of formoterol + budesonide or salmeterol + fluticasone for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – a network meta-analysis

Objective: To compare efficacy of indacaterol to that of fixed-dose combination (FDC) formoterol and budesonide (FOR/BUD) and FDC salmeterol and fluticasone (SAL/FP) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on the available randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: Fifteen placebo-controlled RCTs were included that evaluated: indacaterol 150 μg (n = 5 studies), indacaterol 300 μg (n = 4), FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (n = 2), FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (n = 3), SAL/FP 50/500 μg (n = 5), and SAL/FP 50/250 μg (n = 1). Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), total scores for St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI). All trials were analyzed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included where possible to improve the similarity of the trials. Results: Indacaterol 150 μg resulted in a higher change from baseline (CFB) in FEV1 at 12 weeks compared to FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (difference in CFB 0.11 L [95% credible intervals: 0.08, 0.13]) and FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (0.09 L [0.06, 0.11]) and was comparable to SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.02 L [−0.04, 0.08]) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (0.03 L [0.00, 0.06]). Similar results were observed for indacaterol 300 μg at 12 weeks and indacaterol 150/300 μg at 6 months. Indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated comparable improvement in SGRQ total score at 6 months versus FOR/BUD (both doses), and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (−2.16 point improvement [−4.96, 0.95]). Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg demonstrated comparable TDI scores versus SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.21 points (−0.57, 0.99); 0.39 [−0.39, 1.17], respectively) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg at 6 months. Conclusion: Indacaterol monotherapy is expected to be at least as good as FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and comparable to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of lung function. Indacaterol is also expected to be comparable to FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg in terms of health status and to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of breathlessness.

A process for assessing the feasibility of a network meta-analysis: a case study of everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy versus chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to outline a general process for assessing the feasibility of performing a valid network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to synthesize direct and indirect evidence for alternative treatments for a specific disease population.MethodsSeveral steps to assess the feasibility of an NMA are proposed based on existing recommendations. Next, a case study is used to illustrate this NMA feasibility assessment process in order to compare everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy to alternative chemotherapies in terms of progression-free survival for women with advanced breast cancer.ResultsA general process for assessing the feasibility of an NMA is outlined that incorporates explicit steps to visualize the heterogeneity in terms of treatment and outcome characteristics (Part A) as well as the study and patient characteristics (Part B). Additionally, steps are performed to illustrate differences within and across different types of direct comparisons in terms of baseline risk (Part C) and observed treatment effects (Part D) since there is a risk that the treatment effect modifiers identified may not explain the observed heterogeneity or inconsistency in the results due to unexpected, unreported or unmeasured differences. Depending on the data available, alternative approaches are suggested: list assumptions, perform a meta-regression analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analyses, or summarize why an NMA is not feasible.ConclusionsThe process outlined to assess the feasibility of an NMA provides a stepwise framework that will help to ensure that the underlying assumptions are systematically explored and that the risks (and benefits) of pooling and indirectly comparing treatment effects from RCTs for a particular research question are transparent.

Quantitative summaries of treatment effect estimates obtained with network meta-analysis of survival curves to inform decision-making

BackgroundIncreasingly, network meta-analysis (NMA) of published survival data are based on parametric survival curves as opposed to reported hazard ratios to avoid relying on the proportional hazards assumption. If a Bayesian framework is used for the NMA, rank probabilities associated with the alternative treatments can be obtained, which directly support decision-making. In the context of survival analysis multiple treatment effect measures are available to inform the rank probabilities.MethodsA fractional polynomial NMA of overall survival in advanced melanoma was performed as an illustrative example. Rank probabilities were calculated and presented for the following effect measures: 1) median survival; 2) expected survival; 3) mean survival at the follow-up time point of the trial with the shortest follow-up; 4) hazard or hazard ratio over time; 5) cumulative hazard or survival proportions over time; and 6) mean survival at subsequent time points. The advantages and disadvantages of the alternative measures were discussed.ResultsSince hazard and survival estimates may vary over time for the compared interventions, calculations of rank probabilities for an NMA of survival curves may depend on the effect measure. With methods 1–3 rank probabilities do not vary over time, which are easier to understand and communicate than rank probabilities that vary over time as obtained with methods 4–6. However, rank probabilities based on methods 4–6 provide useful information regarding the relative treatment effects over time.ConclusionsDifferent approaches to summarize results of a NMA of survival curves with rank probabilities have pros and cons. Rank probabilities of treatment effects over time provide a more transparent and informative approach to help guide decision-making than single rank probabilities based on collapsed measures, such as median survival or expected survival. Rank probabilities based on survival proportions are the most intuitive and straightforward to communicate, but alternatives based on the hazard function or mean survival over time may also be useful.

Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol relative to alternative bronchodilators in COPD: a patient-level mixed treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVE Indacaterol was evaluated versus placebo, formoterol, and salmeterol in randomized controlled trials. No direct comparisons, however, are available for indacaterol 150 μg with formoterol or indacaterol 300 μg with salmeterol. Indacaterol trial evidence was synthesized to provide coherent estimates of indacaterol 150 μg and indacaterol 300 μg relative to formoterol, salmeterol, and tiotropium. METHODS Four randomized controlled trials were combined with Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons by using individual patient-level data. End points of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and response (≥ 4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index total score and response (≥ 1 point). RESULTS Indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a higher FEV(1) than did formoterol at 12 weeks and 6 months (0.10 L difference; 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.06-0.14), as did indacaterol 300 μg versus salmeterol (0.06 L difference at 12 weeks; CrI = 0.02-0.10; 0.06 L at 6 months; CrI = 0.02-0.11). Regarding SGRQ, indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a comparable proportion of responders versus formoterol, as did indacaterol 300 μg versus salmeterol. In comparison to tiotropium, indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a greater proportion of responders (odds ratio = 1.52 at 12 weeks; CrI 1.15-2.00). For Transition Dyspnea Index, indacaterol 150 μg and formoterol showed a similar response. Indacaterol 300 μg was more efficacious than salmeterol (odds ratio = 1.65 at 12 weeks; CrI 1.16-2.34). Overall, indacaterol 150 μg showed the greatest efficacy for SGRQ and indacaterol 300 μg for FEV(1) and Transition Dyspnea Index. CONCLUSION Indacaterol is expected to be comparable to formoterol, salmeterol, and tiotropium, providing higher FEV(1) than formoterol and salmeterol and greater improvement in the SGRQ total score than tiotropium. Indacaterol 150 μg provided comparable improvement in dyspnea, while indacaterol 300 μg demonstrated the greatest response overall.

Efficacy of indacaterol 75 μg versus fixed-dose combinations of formoterol-budesonide or salmeterol-fluticasone for COPD: a network meta-analysis

Background The purpose of this study was to update our network meta-analysis in order to compare the efficacy of indacaterol 75 μg with that of a fixed-dose combination of formoterol and budesonide (FOR/BUD) and a fixed-dose combination salmeterol and fluticasone (SAL/FP) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on evidence identified previously in addition to two new randomized clinical trials. Methods Fifteen randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials including COPD patients were evaluated: indacaterol 75 μg once daily (n = 2 studies), indacaterol 150 μg once daily (n = 5), indacaterol 300 μg once daily (n = 4), FOR/BUD 9/160 μg twice daily (n = 2), FOR/BUD 9/320 μg twice daily (n = 2), SAL/FP 50/500 μg twice daily (n = 4), and SAL/FP 50/250 μg twice daily (n = 1). All trials were analyzed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included where possible to improve the similarity of the trials. Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and transitional dyspnea index at 12 weeks. Results Based on the results without adjustment for covariates, indacaterol 75 μg resulted in a greater improvement in FEV1 at 12 weeks compared with FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (difference in change from baseline 0.09 L [95% credible interval 0.04–0.13]) and FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (0.07 L [0.03–0.11]) and was comparable with SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.00 L [−0.07–0.07]) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (0.01 L [−0.04–0.05]). For transitional dyspnea index, data was available only for indacaterol 75 μg versus SAL/FP 50/500 μg (−0.49 points [−1.87–0.89]). Conclusion Based on results of a network meta-analysis with and without covariates, indacaterol 75 μg is expected to be at least as efficacious as FOR/BUD (9/320 μg and 9/160 μg) and comparable with SAL/FP (50/250 μg and 50/500 μg) in terms of lung function. In terms of breathlessness (transitional dyspnea index) at 12 weeks, the results are inconclusive given the limited data.

Economic Evaluation of Fulvestrant 500 mg Versus Generic Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 500 mg for the treatment of first progression or recurrence of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients compared with generic nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole) in the United Kingdom. METHODS A cost-utility model based on a time-in-state approach was used. Clinical effectiveness estimates used in the model were derived from a network meta-analysis for overall survival and serious adverse events. Overall survival was extrapolated by using a Weibull distribution, and progression-free survival (PFS) estimates were derived from a simultaneous network meta-analysis and extrapolation of PFS curves by using the log-normal distribution. Data on resource use, costs, and utilities were based on various sources, including expert opinion and published data. To explore uncertainty, 1-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted. The study was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, and costs are reported in 2010/2011 British pounds. RESULTS The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for fulvestrant 500 mg versus letrozole was £34,528, with incremental costs of £14,383 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.417. Extended dominance occurred for anastrozole because the ICER for anastrozole versus letrozole was higher than the ICER for fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole. Based on the probability sensitivity analyses, the probability that fulvestrant 500 mg was the most cost-effective treatment option was 3%, 20%, and 53% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000, £30,000, and £40,000 per QALY, respectively. According to the 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS estimates were the key drivers of the model results. CONCLUSIONS Although fulvestrant 500 mg was found not to be a cost-effective option at a standard UK threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY, it may be relevant to apply a higher threshold due to the poor prognosis of patients with advanced breast cancer and the limited number of hormonal treatment options available for this stage of treatment. Certain subgroups may also benefit from fulvestrant as a treatment option; however, limited data are currently available to identify these subgroups.

Why Clinicians are Not Relying on Evidence from Indirect Comparison Studies Evaluating Comparative Efficacy of Interventions for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Critical Review

therapy significantly prolonged median PFS (36 vs. 19 months, HR:0.56; p1⁄40.03) compared to no maintenance. Conclusions: In the largest cohort of t(14:16) patients described to date, t(14;16) characterizes a group of high-risk MM patients with poor PFS and OS. ASCT-1 in first remission and maintenance therapy prolonged survival of patients with t(14;16).