Cargando…

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled trials have compared new treatments for metastatic melanoma. We sought to examine the relative treatment effect of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib. METHODS: A systematic literature review of treatments for metastatic melanoma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Quinn, Casey, Ma, Qiufei, Kudlac, Amber, Palmer, Stephen, Barber, Beth, Zhao, Zhongyun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x
_version_ 1782429083089502208
author Quinn, Casey
Ma, Qiufei
Kudlac, Amber
Palmer, Stephen
Barber, Beth
Zhao, Zhongyun
author_facet Quinn, Casey
Ma, Qiufei
Kudlac, Amber
Palmer, Stephen
Barber, Beth
Zhao, Zhongyun
author_sort Quinn, Casey
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled trials have compared new treatments for metastatic melanoma. We sought to examine the relative treatment effect of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib. METHODS: A systematic literature review of treatments for metastatic melanoma was undertaken but a valid network of evidence could not be established because of a lack of comparative data or studies with sufficient common comparators. A conventional adjusted indirect treatment comparison via network meta-analysis was, therefore, not feasible. Instead, a meta-analysis of absolute efficacy was undertaken, adjusting overall survival (OS) data for differences in prognostic factors between studies using a published algorithm. RESULTS: Four trials were included in the final indirect treatment comparison: two of ipilimumab, one of vemurafenib, and one of talimogene laherparepvec. Median OS for ipilimumab and vemurafenib increased significantly when adjustment was applied, demonstrating that variation in disease and patient characteristics was biasing OS estimates; adjusting for this made the survival data more comparable. For both ipilimumab and vemurafenib, the adjustments improved Kaplan–Meier OS curves; the observed talimogene laherparepvec OS curve remained above the adjusted OS curves for ipilimumab and vemurafenib, showing that long-term survival could differ from the observed medians. CONCLUSION: Even with limited data, talimogene laherparepvec, ipilimumab, and vemurafenib could be compared following adjustments, thereby providing a more reliable understanding of the relative effect of treatment on survival in a more comparable patient population. The results of this analysis suggest that OS with talimogene laherparepvec is at least as good as with ipilimumab and vemurafenib and improvement was more pronounced in patients with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral metastases. FUNDING: Amgen Inc. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4846697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48466972016-05-21 Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma Quinn, Casey Ma, Qiufei Kudlac, Amber Palmer, Stephen Barber, Beth Zhao, Zhongyun Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled trials have compared new treatments for metastatic melanoma. We sought to examine the relative treatment effect of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib. METHODS: A systematic literature review of treatments for metastatic melanoma was undertaken but a valid network of evidence could not be established because of a lack of comparative data or studies with sufficient common comparators. A conventional adjusted indirect treatment comparison via network meta-analysis was, therefore, not feasible. Instead, a meta-analysis of absolute efficacy was undertaken, adjusting overall survival (OS) data for differences in prognostic factors between studies using a published algorithm. RESULTS: Four trials were included in the final indirect treatment comparison: two of ipilimumab, one of vemurafenib, and one of talimogene laherparepvec. Median OS for ipilimumab and vemurafenib increased significantly when adjustment was applied, demonstrating that variation in disease and patient characteristics was biasing OS estimates; adjusting for this made the survival data more comparable. For both ipilimumab and vemurafenib, the adjustments improved Kaplan–Meier OS curves; the observed talimogene laherparepvec OS curve remained above the adjusted OS curves for ipilimumab and vemurafenib, showing that long-term survival could differ from the observed medians. CONCLUSION: Even with limited data, talimogene laherparepvec, ipilimumab, and vemurafenib could be compared following adjustments, thereby providing a more reliable understanding of the relative effect of treatment on survival in a more comparable patient population. The results of this analysis suggest that OS with talimogene laherparepvec is at least as good as with ipilimumab and vemurafenib and improvement was more pronounced in patients with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral metastases. FUNDING: Amgen Inc. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2016-03-15 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4846697/ /pubmed/26979173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x Text en © The Author(s) 2016 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Quinn, Casey
Ma, Qiufei
Kudlac, Amber
Palmer, Stephen
Barber, Beth
Zhao, Zhongyun
Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
title Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
title_full Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
title_fullStr Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
title_full_unstemmed Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
title_short Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
title_sort indirect treatment comparison of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x
work_keys_str_mv AT quinncasey indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma
AT maqiufei indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma
AT kudlacamber indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma
AT palmerstephen indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma
AT barberbeth indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma
AT zhaozhongyun indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma