Search

Background: Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice.Methods: A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted.Results: 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI - 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of - 3.7 (95% CI - 6.8, - 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI - 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks.Conclusions: PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Normative scores (norms) allow for comparisons between population(s) of interest and the general population, which is useful for burden of disease studies and cost-effectiveness analysis. The primary aim of this study was to estimate US visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) and utility-based norms for the EQ-5D-5L using the face-to-face sample. The secondary aim was to compare norms estimated in the face-to-face and online populations.Methods: This study estimated population norms from two general population surveys: (a) face-to-face and (b) online. In these surveys, respondents provided their health state using the EQ-5D-5L health classifier and the EQ VAS. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval, and median for the 5L utility and EQ VAS were estimated for each sample and across relevant respondent characteristics to serve as the basis for US EQ-5D-5L norms RESULTS: Face-to-face sample respondents (n = 1134) were representative of the US adult general population. In this sample, mean (SD) utility decreased with increasing age until age 45 or greater (age 45-54: 0.816 (0.249) age 55-64: 0.815 (0.243) age 65-74: 0.824 (0.217) age 75 + : 0.811 (0.218)). With increasing age, more problems were reported on all dimensions except anxiety/depression; a smaller proportion of respondents age 65 and older reported problems with anxiety/depression (23.8%) as compared to the youngest respondents (42.1%). Online (n = 2018) mean utility and EQ VAS values were consistently lower than the face-to-face sample.Conclusions: The availability of US EQ-5D-5L norms facilitates interpretation and understanding of general population and patient health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]