Quantitative Bias Analysis (QBA) for Comparative Effectiveness of Alectinib versus Ceritinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

Author(s)

Wilkinson S1, Gupta A2, Scheuer N3, Mackay E2, Arora P2, Thorlund K4, Wasiak R5, Ray J6, Ramagopalan S7
1Roche, Welwyn Garden City, UK, 2Cytel, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3Roche Products Limited, Welwyn Garden City, UK, 4McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 5Cytel, London, UK, 6F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, BS, Switzerland, 7F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland

OBJECTIVES : German and Canadian HTAs rejected reimbursement of alectinib for second-line (2L) ALK+ NSCLC citing possible biases from (i) unmeasured confounding and (ii) missing ECOG performance status (PS) data in real-world evidence (RWE) for 2L ceritinib submitted as comparator to single-arm alectinib trials. We sought to evaluate this HTA decision using post-launch real-world data from the United States, where alectinib was approved.

METHODS : Quantitative bias analysis was used to compare the effectiveness of alectinib versus ceritinib in 2L post-crizotinib ALK+ NSCLC using treatment arms derived from pooled single-arm alectinib trials (n=183) and records from a US nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database (n=87 and 102 for alectinib and ceritinib). Propensity score weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between treatment arms.

RESULTS : Large imbalances were observed in age, CNS metastases and prior chemotherapy. After adjustment for baseline covariates, alectinib-treated patients (n=55) had significantly longer median overall survival (OS) of 28 months (95% CI: 20-37) than ceritinib (11 months, 95% CI: 8-27; n=44) using complete case analysis (hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 0.43-0.91). An unmeasured confounder associated with OS and alectinib exposure by a risk ratio >2.1-fold was needed to nullify the observed treatment effect. Under a missing-at-random assumption (MAR) for ECOG PS scores (49% missing for ceritinib arm) using multiple imputation, the pooled HR was 0.64 (0.5-0.8). The observed treatment effect was robust to all deviations from MAR where balance in baseline characteristics could be achieved. Alectinib maintained a significantly longer median OS (28 months versus 13 months, HR: 0.70, 0.54-0.85) after shifting an additional 10-40% patients to a poorer ECOG PS than expected under MAR.

CONCLUSIONS : Only implausible levels of bias reversed our conclusions. These methods could provide a framework to explore uncertainty in RWE and aid decision-making for HTAs to enable patient access to innovative therapies.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2021-05, ISPOR 2021, Montreal, Canada

Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 5, S1 (May 2021)

Acceptance Code

RW3

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Methodological & Statistical Research

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Confounding, Selection Bias Correction, Causal Inference, Missing Data

Disease

Oncology

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×