Back to Browse Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 3

Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy

Authors Gerald HJ Mickisch, Björn Schwander, Bernard Escudier, et al

Published Date January 2011 Volume 2011:3 Pages 19—27

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S16118

Published 25 January 2011

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

Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML] 

Creative Commons License This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php

Readers of this article also read:

A pilot randomized controlled trial using EEG-based brain–computer interface training for a Chinese-speaking group of healthy elderly

Lee TS, Quek SY, Goh SJA, Phillips R, Guan C, Cheung YB, Feng L, Wang CC, Chin ZY, Zhang H, Lee J, Ng TP, Krishnan KRR

Clinical Interventions in Aging 2015, 10:217-227

Published Date: 9 January 2015

Effects triggered by platinum nanoparticles on primary keratinocytes

Konieczny P, Goralczyk AG, Szmyd R, Skalniak L, Koziel J, Filon FL, Crosera M, Cierniak A, Zuba-Surma EK, Borowczyk J, Laczna E, Drukala J, Pyza E, Semik D, Woznicka O, Klein A, Jura J

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2013, 8:3963-3975

Published Date: 16 October 2013

Supramolecular micellar nanoaggregates based on a novel chitosan/vitamin E succinate copolymer for paclitaxel selective delivery

Lian H, Sun J, Yu YP, Liu YH, Cao W, Wang YJ, Sun YH, Wang SL, He ZG

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2011, 6:3323-3334

Published Date: 12 December 2011

Josef Jadassohn (1863–1936), Felix Lewandowsky (1879–1921), and their syndrome

Al Aboud A, Al Aboud K

Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology 2011, 4:179-182

Published Date: 6 December 2011

Erratum

Xiao N, Shi S, Zhuang H

Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research 2011, 3:19-20

Published Date: 18 March 2011

The use of lorcaserin in the management of obesity: a critical appraisal

Bo Bai, Yu Wang

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2011, 5:1-7

Published Date: 20 December 2010

Free radicals in the aqueous humor of patients with glaucoma

Eiki Oshida, Yukihiro Matsumoto, Kiyomi Arai

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:653-660

Published Date: 21 June 2010