OP208 Did Health Technology Assessments Make the Wrong Call? Quantitative Bias Analysis: Alectinib versus Ceritinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract

Introduction

The German health technology assessment (HTA) rejected additional benefit of alectinib for second line (2L) ALK+ NSCLC, citing possible biases from missing ECOG performance status data and unmeasured confounding in real-world evidence (RWE) for 2L ceritinib that was submitted as a comparator to the single arm alectinib trial. Alectinib was approved in the US and therefore US post-launch RWE can be used to evaluate this HTA decision.

Methods

We compared the real-world effectiveness of alectinib with ceritinib in 2L post-crizotinib ALK+ NSCLC using the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. Using quantitative bias analysis (QBA), we estimated the strength of (i) unmeasured confounding and (ii) deviation from missing-at-random (MAR) assumptions needed to nullify any overall survival (OS) benefit.

Results

Alectinib had significantly longer median OS than ceritinib in complete case analysis. The estimated effect size (Hazard Ratio: 0.55) was robust to risk ratios of unmeasured confounder-outcome and confounder-exposure associations of <2.4.

Based on tipping point analysis, missing baseline ECOG performance status for ceritinib-treated patients (49% missing) would need to be more than 3.4-times worse than expected under MAR to nullify the OS benefit observed for alectinib.

Conclusions

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