The relative clinical efficacy of trametinib-dabrafenib and cobimetinib-vemurafenib in advanced melanoma: an indirect comparison

Summary What is known and objective Melanoma causes the majority of skin cancer‐related deaths. The outcome of melanoma depends on its stage at diagnosis. Currently, for patients with advanced melanoma, two MEK inhibitors (trametinib and cobimetinib) have been authorized by the European Medicines Ag...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics 2016-06, Vol.41 (3), p.285-289
Hauptverfasser: Galván-Banqueri, M., Ubago-Pérez, R., Molina-López, T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Summary What is known and objective Melanoma causes the majority of skin cancer‐related deaths. The outcome of melanoma depends on its stage at diagnosis. Currently, for patients with advanced melanoma, two MEK inhibitors (trametinib and cobimetinib) have been authorized by the European Medicines Agency. The main objective of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of trametinib–dabrafenib and cobimetinib–vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma through adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). Methods A search was made up to the 3rd of November 2015. Databases consulted were MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy of trametinib–dabrafenib or cobimetinib–vemurafenib versus a common treatment comparator, in which outcomes of overall survival, progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were considered. ITCs were carried out using the method proposed by Bucher et al. Results and discussion Two RCTs were included (one for each drugs combination). The results of the adjusted ITCs showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two combinations in terms of PFS and ORR. What is new and conclusion The ITCs indicate no difference in efficacy between both treatments. However, there should be an independent, head‐to‐head trial of both combinations to confirm the results.
ISSN:0269-4727
1365-2710
DOI:10.1111/jcpt.12390