Search

Summary: A patient oriented hospital information system (ARIANE) was inaugurated at the Sherbrooke University hospital (CHUS) in 1990 and a clinical data warehouse (CDW) completed 2004. The CDW is updated from ARIANE every 24h and includes ICD discharge diagnosis data, visit DRG and SNOMED encoding. The data is encrypted on storage. Data is accessed according to institutional approval. To facilitate data access two levels of tool have been made accessible using a web-browser. The first level consists of a ‘dashboard’ that has a defined design and enables a set of pre-determined dynamic queries about a patient population. This level can be operated with minimal training. The second level uses a convivial database query tool, which requires some prior training. Two prototype dashboards have been designed and evaluated for acceptability. The first for the emergency department enables analysis of patient occupancy. The second for the biochemistry department enables quality assurance evaluation. In most cases worldwide the clinical data warehouse is only beginning to be exploited, often impeded by lack of connection between different enterprise databases. Our CDW is expected rapidly to create a culture change so that clinical practice can be continuously evaluated using compiled data readily available from the electronic health record/hospital information system. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objectives: : Total testosterone (TT) is frequently prescribed with an SHBG and/or free or bioavailable testosterone measurement. Our objective was to identify a TT range for which subsequent SHBG measurement/calculation adds no additional clinical information. Design and methods: : Study data were composed of 3955 sets of TT, SHBG and calculated bioavailable testosterone (cBAT) results from unscreened ambulatory male subjects, aged 18-99. Results: : 90% of mismatches between TT and cBAT were observed with TT levels between 6.5 and 13.0 nmol/L, with only slight age variation and no important change with albumin level. SHBG measurement restricted to male patients with TT between 6.5 and 13.0 nmol/L should enable reagent cost savings of over 55%. Conclusion: : We suggest that a TT level below 6.5 nmol/L or above 13.0 nmol/L provides sufficient useful information for ruling out hypogonadism in ambulatory adult males. This strategy of BAT testing should lead to significant time and cost savings. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 trial, a novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) of nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA; a programmed death-1 and a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 inhibitor, respectively) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma (median follow-up, 13.2 months) with stable health-related quality of life (HRQoL), although grade three or four treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were more frequent with the combination. Updated HRQoL results (median follow-up, 19.3 months) are presented. Patients were randomised to receive intravenous NIVO + RELA (480 mg and 160 mg, respectively) or NIVO (480 mg) every 4 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Melanoma (FACT-M) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, before dosing at each treatment cycle, and at follow-up (posttreatment) visits. Consistent with the initial analysis, HRQoL remained stable with NIVO + RELA on treatment and was similar to that with NIVO. Mean changes from baseline did not exceed clinically meaningful thresholds. HRQoL results were consistent across instruments and scales/subscales. Despite an increased rate of grade three or four TRAEs with NIVO + RELA versus NIVO, the proportion of patients reporting that they were bothered 'quite a bit' or 'very much' by TRAEs was low and comparable between treatments. Results from the RELATIVITY-047 trial show that the PFS benefit with NIVO + RELA FDC over NIVO was obtained with stable patient-reported HRQoL, supporting NIVO + RELA as a first-line treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. • Nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA) improves PFS versus nivolumab in melanoma, with added toxicity. • In RELATIVITY-047, quality of life (QoL) was stable/similar with both treatments. • Results were consistent across all QoL instruments and subscales. • QoL results suggest that the two treatments had similar overall tolerability. • These results support NIVO + RELA as a first-line option for melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real‐world data on this regimen are limited in this setting. Methods: This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed. Results: One hundred ninety‐one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3–10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%–60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing 'significant' TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings. Conclusions: Real‐world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well‐documented safety of weight‐based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nivolumab (an anti–programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40–0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma. • Nivolumab is an adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. • This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) compared adjuvant nivolumab with placebo. • Placebo was the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy. • Data used in the ITC were from two phase III trials. • Adjuvant nivolumab improved efficacy versus placebo in high-risk resected melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies.Methods: IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.Results: Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti-programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab-treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab-treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts.Conclusions: With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary.Results: Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib.Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of the current study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatment with nivolumab relative to clinically relevant comparators in adult patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection from a French societal perspective. Methods: The comparators were observation, low-dose interferon and pembrolizumab. A subgroup analysis was carried out in patients with BRAF mutation, adding dabrafenib plus trametinib. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to project costs and health benefits over a 20-year time horizon. Extrapolation for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was carried out using spline-based models. Because of the immaturity of OS data in pivotal trials for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, a predictive model of OS treatment effect based on RFS effect was developed using a correlation equation. Health state utilities and adverse events disutilities were derived from the CheckMate 238 trial and literature. Costs were estimated in 2019 euros. The model's primary outcome was efficiency frontier. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. Results: Observation, low-dose interferon and nivolumab were on the efficiency frontier. The incremental cost–utility ratio of nivolumab versus low-dose interferon (closest therapy on the efficiency frontier) was €37,886/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis reported an 80% probability of nivolumab being a cost-effective strategy for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €52,000/QALY. In the subgroup with BRAF mutation, the efficiency frontier was not changed by the addition of dabrafenib plus trametinib. Conclusions: Nivolumab is a cost-effective strategy as adjuvant treatment in adult patients with surgically resected melanoma in France. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent changes in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma have raised interest in confirming relapse-free survival (RFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS). We explore this issue with the meta-analytic framework, using individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 trial of ipilimumab and published results from other adjuvant trials. The individual patient data analysis results at a median follow-up of 5.3 years showed a strong association between RFS and OS at the patient level (ρ = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82–0.87) and a moderate association at the trial level (R2 = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.08–1.00). The trial-level association previously observed in interferon-based trials appeared to be maintained when the EORTC 18071 results were added to a regression analysis using published results from other trials. More data from adjuvant trials are required to confirm the strength of association between RFS and OS in this setting. • We explored relapse-free survival (RFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS). • We used data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial and published results from other trials. • We found a strong association between RFS and OS at the patient level. • We found a moderate association between RFS and OS at the trial level. • Our results are promising and require confirmation with a larger number of trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective.This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted.NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY.NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY.Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective.This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted.NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY.NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY.Results: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective.This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted.NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY.NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY.Conclusions: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective.This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted.NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY.NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the effect of visual impairment (VI) on the risk of depression or death in the community-dwelling elderly population. Methods: A population-based, retrospective fixed cohort study was conducted in the community-dwelling elderly (age ≥ 65 years) outpatient population of Quebec. The cohort was assembled through the Quebec medical services database and consisted of the 5063 patients aged ≥ 65 years who received a diagnosis of VI during the years 2000–2004. The reference cohort consisted of 16 932 elderly subjects who were randomly selected among members of the public drug programme. The outcome variables were depression and death. The main independent variable was VI and covariates included age, gender, chronic disease score, fracture and diabetes. Results: Controlling for covariates, VI was associated with an increased risk of depression although the effect was not modified by severity (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–1.66 for severe VI; HR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.09–1.69 for moderate VI). Visual impairment was associated with an increased risk of mortality; patients with moderate vision loss had a higher risk of death (HR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.55–1.87) than those with severe vision loss (HR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.21–1.48). Conclusions: Given the ageing of the population, VI in elderly subjects is becoming a public health concern. These findings enhance the need to detect and treat VI in order to improve the quality of life and to prevent premature mortality in the elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage. Methods: Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period. Results: The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively. Conclusions: The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]