TY - JOUR
T1 - Indirect comparison of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line metastatic lung cancer
AU - Halmos, Balazs
AU - Burke, Thomas
AU - Kalyvas, Chrysostomos
AU - Insinga, Ralph
AU - Vandormael, Kristel
AU - Frederickson, Andrew
AU - Piperdi, Bilal
N1 - Funding Information:
Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Adelphi Values Limited. This assistance was funded by Merck Sharp
Funding Information:
This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. (NJ, USA). T Burke, B Piperdi, R Insinga, C Kalyvas and K Vandormael are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. B Piperdi was an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., when the study was conducted. A Frederickson is an employee of precision HEOR; precision HEOR received funding from Merck & Co as part of the research conducted. B Halmos has received compensation as a consultant from Merck & Co., BMS, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Guardant Health, TPT, Pfizer, Novartis and Amgen and has received grants from Eli-Lilly, Merck, BMS, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Guardant Health, Pfizer, Novartis, AbbVie, Advaxis, GSK and Amgen. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors.
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - Aim: This study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials and methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using pooled individual patient data from KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 and published aggregate data from CheckMate 227 Part 1A, with platinum doublet chemotherapy as the anchor. Results: After matching, estimated hazard ratios (95% CI) of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab for overall survival and progression-free survival were 1.07 (0.82, 1.39) and 1.16 (0.93, 1.45), respectively. For objective response rate, the estimated risk ratio (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.71, 1.22) and the risk difference (95% CI) was -2.86%(-11.38, 5.67). Conclusion: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison results demonstrated comparable effectiveness between pembrolizumab monotherapy and nivolumab + ipilimumab as first-line therapies for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor-proportion score ≥1%.
AB - Aim: This study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials and methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using pooled individual patient data from KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 and published aggregate data from CheckMate 227 Part 1A, with platinum doublet chemotherapy as the anchor. Results: After matching, estimated hazard ratios (95% CI) of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab for overall survival and progression-free survival were 1.07 (0.82, 1.39) and 1.16 (0.93, 1.45), respectively. For objective response rate, the estimated risk ratio (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.71, 1.22) and the risk difference (95% CI) was -2.86%(-11.38, 5.67). Conclusion: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison results demonstrated comparable effectiveness between pembrolizumab monotherapy and nivolumab + ipilimumab as first-line therapies for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor-proportion score ≥1%.
KW - comparative effectiveness
KW - nivolumab
KW - non-small-cell lung cancer
KW - pembrolizumab
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126152428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85126152428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2217/imt-2021-0273
DO - 10.2217/imt-2021-0273
M3 - Article
C2 - 35073727
AN - SCOPUS:85126152428
SN - 1750-743X
VL - 14
SP - 295
EP - 307
JO - Immunotherapy
JF - Immunotherapy
IS - 5
ER -
