Use of Advanced Flexible Modeling Approaches for Survival Extrapolation from Early Follow-up Data in two Nivolumab Trials in Advanced NSCLC with Extended Follow-up

Objectives: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies are often associated with delayed responses that are deep and durable, manifesting as long-term survival benefits in patients with metastatic cancer. Complex hazard functions arising from IO treatments may limit the accuracy of extrapolations from standard parametric models (SPMs). We evaluated the ability of flexible parametric models (FPMs) to improve survival extrapolations using data from 2 trials involving patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Our analyses used consecutive database locks (DBLs) at 2-, 3-, and 5-y minimum follow-up from trials evaluating nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with pretreated metastatic squamous (CheckMate-017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate-057) NSCLC. For each DBL, SPMs, as well as 3 FPMs—landmark response models (LRMs), mixture cure models (MCMs), and Bayesian multiparameter evidence synthesis (B-MPES)—were estimated on nivolumab overall survival (OS). The performance of each parametric model was assessed by comparing milestone restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) and survival probabilities with results obtained from externally validated SPMs. Results: For the 2- and 3-y DBLs of both trials, all models tended to underestimate 5-y OS. Predictions from nonvalidated SPMs fitted to the 2-y DBLs were highly unreliable, whereas extrapolations from FPMs were much more consistent between models fitted to successive DBLs. For CheckMate-017, in which an apparent survival plateau emerges in the 3-y DBL, MCMs fitted to this DBL estimated 5-y OS most accurately (11.6% v. 12.3% observed), and long-term predictions were similar to those from the 5-y validated SPM (20-y RMST: 30.2 v. 30.5 mo). For CheckMate-057, where there is no clear evidence of a survival plateau in the early DBLs, only B-MPES was able to accurately predict 5-y OS (14.1% v. 14.0% observed [3-y DBL]). Conclusions: We demonstrate that the use of FPMs for modeling OS in NSCLC patients from early follow-up data can yield accurate estimates for RMST observed with longer follow-up and provide similar long-term extrapolations to externally validated SPMs based on later data cuts. B-MPES generated reasonable predictions even when fitted to the 2-y DBLs of the studies, whereas MCMs were more reliant on longer-term data to estimate a plateau and therefore performed better from 3 y. Generally, LRM extrapolations were less reliable than those from alternative FPMs and validated SPMs but remained superior to nonvalidated SPMs. Our work demonstrates the potential benefits of using advanced parametric models that incorporate external data sources, such as B-MPES and MCMs, to allow for accurate evaluation of treatment clinical and cost-effectiveness from trial data with limited follow-up. Flexible advanced parametric modeling methods can provide improved survival extrapolations for immuno-oncology cost-effectiveness in health technology assessments from early clinical trial data that better anticipate extended follow-up. Advantages include leveraging additional observable trial data, the systematic integration of external data, and more detailed modeling of underlying processes. Bayesian multiparameter evidence synthesis performed particularly well, with well-matched external data. Mixture cure models also performed well but may require relatively longer follow-up to identify an emergent plateau, depending on the specific setting. Landmark response models offered marginal benefits in this scenario and may require greater numbers in each response group and/or increased follow-up to support improved extrapolation within each subgroup

Sustainability of biosimilars in europe: A delphi panel consensus with systematic literature review

Introduction: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe. Methods: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion. Results: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability. Conclusions: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation