Psychometric Validation of the Perception of Injection (PIN) Questionnaire Using Data From Two Phase III, Open-Label, Active-Controlled, Non-Inferiority Studies in People Living With HIV.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, there are no patient-reported outcome tools specifically validated for use in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) to measure treatment injection acceptance and experience. The Perception of Injection (PIN) questionnaire was modified with consent from the Vaccinees' Perception of Injection (VAPI), a validated instrument developed by Sanofi Pasteur. The objective of developing the PIN was to provide information on participant experience with injectable therapies, including acceptance of pain, injection-site reactions, and tolerability following injections in PLHIV. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from participants who received the long-acting intramuscular cabotegravir plus rilpivirine combination treatment every 4 weeks, as part of the ATLAS (NCT02951052) and FLAIR (NCT02938520) studies, to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PIN questionnaire. RESULTS: These findings support the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change for the PIN questionnaire in PLHIV. CONCLUSION: As a clinical trial endpoint, the PIN questionnaire could provide valuable evidence around the acceptance and experience of injections in PLHIV which could have implications for treatment adherence in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ATLAS (NCT02951052); 1 November, 2016. FLAIR (NCT02938520); 19 October, 2016.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Fostemsavir in Heavily Treatment-Experienced People With HIV-1.

PURPOSE: Heavily treatment-experienced (HTE) people with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 have limited treatment options. Treatment with the first-in-class attachment inhibitor fostemsavir in addition to optimized background therapy (OBT) resulted in sustained virologic and immunologic responses in HTE participants throughout 96 weeks in the BRIGHTE trial. In the absence of long-term direct comparative evidence between fostemsavir-based and other antiretroviral regimens, this analysis indirectly compares efficacy and safety across relevant available trials, adjusting for demographic and baseline characteristics. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials with designs and populations comparable to BRIGHTE. Using matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses, individual participant data from BRIGHTE were reweighted to create balanced populations across trials, and efficacy and safety outcomes were compared. FINDINGS: Three comparator trials were identified, 2 of which reflected an optimized therapy without fostemsavir (OBT alone): TMB-301 (ibalizumab and OBT), BENCHMRK-1/-2 (OBT alone), and VIKING-3 (OBT alone). Compared with ibalizumab and OBT (N = 40), fostemsavir and OBT (unadjusted, N = 347; adjusted, N = 236) were associated with numerically higher nonsignificant odds of virologic suppression (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 0.74-2.80; P = 0.284) and a similar increase in CD4+ cell count of approximately 65 cells/mm3 from baseline through week 24 (mean difference = 7.05 cells/mm3; 95% CI, -60.88 to 74.98 cells/mm3; P = 0.834). Compared with OBT from BENCHMRK-1/-2 (N = 237), fostemsavir and OBT (adjusted, N = 126) were associated with significantly higher odds of virologic suppression (OR = 3.26; 95% CI, 2.08-5.11; P < 0.001) and increased CD4+ cell count (135.78 cells/mm3; 95% CI, 91.93-179.63 cells/mm3; P < 0.001) at week 96. Compared with OBT from VIKING-3 (N = 183), fostemsavir and OBT (adjusted, N = 78) were associated with numerically higher odds of virologic suppression (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.78-2.30; P = 0.297) and a modest CD4+ cell count increase (26.86 cells/mm3; 95% CI, -10.79 to 64.52; P = 0.162) through week 48; however, differences were not significant. All-cause discontinuations and safety comparisons varied across studies. IMPLICATIONS: Although matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses have limitations, these results support the use of fostemsavir and OBT as an important treatment option in HTE people with multidrug-resistant HIV-1.

The impact of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on healthcare resource utilisation in the Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

AIM: The Salford Lung Study (SLS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg versus continuing usual care (UC) in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. Here, we investigate the impact of initiating FF/VI on healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) in SLS COPD. METHODS: HRU and interventions were determined from patients' electronic health records. Annual rates of on-treatment all-cause and COPD-related secondary care contacts (SCCs) and primary care contacts (PCCs) for FF/VI versus UC were analysed using a general linear model. Costs were derived from national data sources. RESULTS: Least-squares (LS) mean annual rates of all-cause (9.81 versus 9.36) and COPD-related (1.57 versus 1.48) SCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC, as were rates of all-cause hospitalisations (0.87 versus 0.82). Mean duration of hospital stay/patient was 4.5 and 4.2 days, respectively. COPD-related SCC mean total cost/patient was £484 FF/VI and £475 UC. LS mean annual rates of all-cause PCCs were significantly higher for FF/VI (21.20 versus 18.88 UC; p < 0.001). LS mean annual rates of COPD-related PCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC (2.42 versus 2.46). All-cause PCC mean total cost/patient was £900 FF/VI versus £811 UC, but COPD-related PCC costs were similar (£116 versus £114). Direct COPD-related total medical costs/patient were significantly lower for FF/VI (LS geometric mean £806 versus £963 UC; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients with COPD and exacerbation history, FF/VI may represent a less costly alternative to current therapies.GlaxoSmithKline plc. study HZC115151; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551758.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Impact of socioeconomic status on participation and outcomes in the Salford Lung Studies.

COPD and asthma prevalence is associated with socioeconomic status (or "deprivation"), yet deprivation is rarely considered in typical large-scale efficacy randomised controlled trials that recruit highly selected patient populations. In this post hoc analysis of the Salford Lung Studies in COPD and asthma (two 12-month, open-label, effectiveness randomised controlled trials conducted in UK primary care), we evaluated the impact of patient deprivation on clinical outcomes with initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care. Patients were categorised into deprivation quintiles based on postcode and a countrywide database of indices of deprivation, and trial outcomes by quintile were assessed. 52% of patients in the COPD study were included in the most deprived quintile, contrasting with 20% in the asthma study. Greater deprivation was associated with higher rates of primary/secondary healthcare contacts and costs. However, the treatment effect of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus usual care for primary (COPD: moderate/severe exacerbations; asthma: Asthma Control Test responders at week 24) and secondary/other (healthcare consumption, adherence, treatment modifications, study withdrawals, exacerbations, serious adverse events) outcomes was similar across deprivation quintiles. Our findings support the recruitment of participants from all socioeconomic strata to allow assessment of data generalisability to routine clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III trial of women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and taxanes (EGF100151), lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) improved time to progression (TTP) versus capecitabine monotherapy (C-only). In a trial including HER2+ MBC patients who had received at least one prior course of trastuzumab and no more than one prior course of palliative chemotherapy (GBG 26/BIG 03-05), continued trastuzumab plus capecitabine (T+C) also improved TTP. METHODS: An economic model using patient-level data from EGF100151 and published results of GBG 26/BIG 03-05 as well as other literature were used to evaluate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained with L+C versus C-only and versus T+C in women with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: Expected costs were £28,816 with L+C, £13,985 with C-only and £28,924 with T+C. Corresponding QALYs were 0.927, 0.737 and 0.896. In the base case, L+C was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with T+C; cost per QALY gained was £77,993 with L+C versus C-only. In pairwise probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability that L+C is preferred to C-only was 0.03 given a threshold of £30,000. The probability that L+C is preferred to T+C was 0.54 regardless of the threshold. CONCLUSIONS: When compared against capecitabine alone, the addition of lapatinib has a cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding the threshold normally used by NICE. Compared with T+C, L+C is dominant in the base case and approximately equally likely to be cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses over a wide range of threshold values.