ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
Open access peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
Dove Medical Press is now a member of the Open Access Initiative
An Author's Guide
A guide to help authors get their paper published.
Support Open Access and Dove Press
Promotional Article Monitoring - further details
Favored Author Program
Real benefits for authors, including fast-track processing of papers.
Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy
(5668) Total Article Views
Authors: Gerald HJ Mickisch, Björn Schwander, Bernard Escudier, et al
Published Date January 2011
Volume 2011:3 Pages 19 - 27
Gerald HJ Mickisch1, Björn Schwander2, Bernard Escudier3, Joaquim Bellmunt4, José P Maroto5, Camillo Porta6, Stefan Walzer7, Uwe Siebert8,9
1Department of Urology, Center of Operative Urology Bremen, Bremen, Germany; 2Department of Outcomes Research, AiM GmbH Assessment-in-Medicine, Lörrach, Germany; 3Immunotherapy Unit, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; 4Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital del Mar UPF, Barcelona, Spain; 5Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; 6Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Matteo University Hospital Foundation, Pavia, Italy; 7Global Health Economics, F Hoffmann-La Roche Pharmaceuticals AG, Basel, Switzerland; 8Department of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria; 9Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Background: The vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) given in combination with interferon-α-2a (IFN), and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib (SUN) and pazopanib (PAZ), have all shown significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) therapy. These targeted therapies are currently competing to be primary choice; hence, in the absence of direct head-to-head comparison, there is a need for valid indirect comparison assessment.
Methods: Standard indirect comparison methods were applied to independent review PFS data of the pivotal Phase III trials, to determine indirect treatment comparison hazard-ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). As BEV+IFN and SUN have been compared to IFN, indirect comparison was enabled by the common IFN comparator arms. As PAZ was compared to placebo (PLA), a connector trial (IFN vs PLA) was required for the indirect comparison to BEV+IFN. Sensitivity analyses taking into account real-life influence of patient compliance on clinical outcomes were performed.
Results: The indirect efficacy comparison resulted in a statistically nonsignificant PFS difference of BEV+IFN vs SUN (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.78–1.45; P = 0.73) and of BEV+IFN vs PAZ (range based on different connector trials; HR: 0.74–1.03; P = 0.34–0.92). Simulating real-life patient compliance and its effectiveness impact showed an increased tendency towards BEV+IFN without reaching statistical significance.
Conclusions: There is no statistically significant PFS difference between BEV+IFN and TKIs in first-line mRCC. These findings imply that additional treatment decision criteria such as tolerability and therapy sequencing need to be considered to guide treatment decisions.
Keywords: indirect treatment comparison, progression-free survival, renal cell carcinoma, bevacizumab, sunitinib, pazopanib
Cannotea Citeulike Del.icio.us Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Readers of this article also read:
- DIA Europe
EuroMeeting Vienna 2014
ACV, Vienna, Austria | 25-27 March 2014
"I was impressed at the rapidity of publication from submission to final acceptance." Dr Edwin Thrower, PhD, Yale University.
- Reliability and validity of the Mywellness Key physical activity monitor
- Evidence-based decision-making within the context of globalization: A “Why–What–How” for leaders and managers of health care organizations
- "Globalized public health.” A transdisciplinary comprehensive framework for analyzing contemporary globalization’s influences on the field of public health
- Hepatitis C virus infection and risk of cancer: a population-based cohort study