Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy
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
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML]
Readers of this article also read:
Causative factors for formation of toxic islet amyloid polypeptide oligomer in type 2 diabetes mellitus
Jeong HR, An SSA
Published Date: 19 November 2015
Carr ME, Tortella BJ
Published Date: 3 September 2015
Mutations in presenilin 2 and its implications in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia-associated disorders
Cai Y, An SSA, Kim SY
Published Date: 14 July 2015
Published Date: 12 December 2014
Second case report of successful electroconvulsive therapy for a patient with schizophrenia and severe hemophilia A
Saito N, Shioda K, Nisijima K, Kobayashi T, Kato S
Published Date: 16 May 2014
Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM
Published Date: 16 April 2014
A novel supplemental approach to capturing post-marketing safety information on recombinant factor VIIa in acquired hemophilia: the Acquired Hemophilia Surveillance project
Lentz SR, Tandra A, Gut RZ, Cooper DL
Published Date: 13 January 2014
Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS
Published Date: 15 November 2012
Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS
Published Date: 27 July 2012
Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant
Published Date: 14 July 2010