An Emulated Target Trial Case Study of Real‐World Overall Survival With Second‐Line Maintenance Niraparib Versus Active Surveillance in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1002/pds.70001
Jessica A. Perhanidis, Linda Kalilani, Nicole M. Zimmerman, Amanda Golembesky
{"title":"An Emulated Target Trial Case Study of Real‐World Overall Survival With Second‐Line Maintenance Niraparib Versus Active Surveillance in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer","authors":"Jessica A. Perhanidis, Linda Kalilani, Nicole M. Zimmerman, Amanda Golembesky","doi":"10.1002/pds.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis retrospective real‐world study compared overall survival (OS) between patients with <jats:italic>BRCA</jats:italic> wild‐type (<jats:italic>BRCA</jats:italic>wt) recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib second‐line maintenance (2LM) versus active surveillance (AS) using target trial emulation, cloning, inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) methodology to minimize immortal time bias.MethodsEligible patients from a United States‐based, deidentified, electronic health record–derived database were diagnosed with epithelial OC (January 1, 2011–May 31, 2021), were <jats:italic>BRCA</jats:italic>wt, and completed second‐line (2L) therapy (January 1, 2017–March 2, 2022). Patient data were cloned at index (2L last treatment date), assigned to niraparib 2LM and AS cohorts, and censored when treatment deviated from clone assignment. Follow‐up was measured from index to earliest of study end (May 31, 2022), last activity, or death. Median OS (mOS) and hazard ratios were estimated from stabilized IPCW Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression models.ResultsOverall, 199 patients received niraparib 2LM, and 707 had their care managed with AS. Key characteristics were balanced across cohorts after cloning and stabilized IPCW. Median follow‐up was 15.6‐ and 9.3‐months pre‐cloning. IPCW mOS was 24.1 months (95% CI: 20.9–29.5) and 18.4 months (95% CI: 15.1–22.8) in niraparib 2LM and AS cohorts, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66–0.89).ConclusionsThis real‐world study provides supportive evidence of an OS benefit for patients with <jats:italic>BRCA</jats:italic>wt recurrent OC who received 2LM niraparib monotherapy compared with those whose care was managed with AS. The analytic strategies implemented were useful in minimizing immortal time bias and measured confounding.","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"73 1","pages":"e70001"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis retrospective real‐world study compared overall survival (OS) between patients with BRCA wild‐type (BRCAwt) recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib second‐line maintenance (2LM) versus active surveillance (AS) using target trial emulation, cloning, inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) methodology to minimize immortal time bias.MethodsEligible patients from a United States‐based, deidentified, electronic health record–derived database were diagnosed with epithelial OC (January 1, 2011–May 31, 2021), were BRCAwt, and completed second‐line (2L) therapy (January 1, 2017–March 2, 2022). Patient data were cloned at index (2L last treatment date), assigned to niraparib 2LM and AS cohorts, and censored when treatment deviated from clone assignment. Follow‐up was measured from index to earliest of study end (May 31, 2022), last activity, or death. Median OS (mOS) and hazard ratios were estimated from stabilized IPCW Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression models.ResultsOverall, 199 patients received niraparib 2LM, and 707 had their care managed with AS. Key characteristics were balanced across cohorts after cloning and stabilized IPCW. Median follow‐up was 15.6‐ and 9.3‐months pre‐cloning. IPCW mOS was 24.1 months (95% CI: 20.9–29.5) and 18.4 months (95% CI: 15.1–22.8) in niraparib 2LM and AS cohorts, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66–0.89).ConclusionsThis real‐world study provides supportive evidence of an OS benefit for patients with BRCAwt recurrent OC who received 2LM niraparib monotherapy compared with those whose care was managed with AS. The analytic strategies implemented were useful in minimizing immortal time bias and measured confounding.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
复发性卵巢癌患者二线尼拉帕利维持治疗与积极监测真实世界总生存期的模拟目标试验案例研究
目的这项回顾性真实世界研究比较了BRCA野生型(BRCAwt)复发性上皮性卵巢癌(OC)患者接受尼拉帕利二线维持治疗(2LM)和主动监测(AS)后的总生存期(OS),研究采用了目标试验仿真、克隆、逆概率删减加权(IPCW)方法,以尽量减少不死时间偏差。方法符合条件的患者来自美国的一个去身份化电子健康记录数据库,他们被诊断为上皮性卵巢癌(2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 5 月 31 日),BRCAwt,并完成了二线(2L)治疗(2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 3 月 2 日)。患者数据在指数(2L 最后治疗日期)时进行克隆,分配到尼拉帕利 2LM 和 AS 队列,并在治疗偏离克隆分配时进行剔除。随访时间从指数到研究结束(2022年5月31日)、最后一次活动或死亡的最早日期。中位OS(mOS)和危险比由稳定的IPCW Kaplan-Meier曲线和Cox回归模型估算得出。结果总体而言,199名患者接受了尼拉帕利2LM治疗,707名患者接受了AS治疗。克隆和稳定IPCW后各组群的主要特征保持平衡。克隆前的中位随访时间分别为 15.6 个月和 9.3 个月。尼拉帕利 2LM 和 AS 队列的 IPCW mOS 分别为 24.1 个月(95% CI:20.9-29.5)和 18.4 个月(95% CI:15.1-22.8)(危险比为 0.77;95% CI:0.66-0.89)。所采用的分析策略有助于最大限度地减少不死时间偏倚和测量混杂因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
期刊最新文献
Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Time-To-Event Analysis Approaches in Pharmacoepidemiology. Hydrochlorothiazide Use and Risk of Skin Cancer: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. The Oncology QCARD Initiative: Fostering efficient evaluation of initial real-world data proposals. Validation Study of the Claims-Based Algorithm Using the International Classification of Diseases Codes to Identify Patients With Coronavirus Disease in Japan From 2020 to 2022: The VENUS Study. A Validated Algorithm to Identify Hepatic Decompensation in the Veterans Health Administration Electronic Health Record System.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1