Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Moderate to Severe Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease: A Multicenter Chart Review Study.

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) remains a barrier to successful allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) outcomes. Contemporary comprehensive analyses of real-world clinical outcomes among patients who develop aGVHD post-HSCT are needed to better understand the unmet needs of this patient population. This multicenter, retrospective chart review describes treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients (≥18 years old) from Finland, Sweden, and France who developed grades II-IV aGVHD after their first HSCT (January 2016-June 2017). From 13 participating centers, 151 patients were included. The median (Q1, Q3) age at HSCT was 56 (45, 62) years old. One line of aGVHD treatment was received by 47.7%, and the most common first-line treatment was methylprednisolone (alone or in a combination regimen, 74.2%; monotherapy, 25.8%). Among patients treated with methylprednisolone, 79.5% achieved a complete or partial response. The median (Q1, Q3) number of treatment lines was 2.0 (1.0, 3.0). The median (Q1, Q3) time to obtain an aGVHD diagnosis from transplant was 29.5 (21.0, 44.0) days, and 14.5 (7.0, 34.0) days to achieve the best response for 110 evaluable patients. At 6 and 12 months, 53.6% and 49.0%, respectively, achieved a complete response. Chronic GVHD occurred in 37.7% of patients, and aGVHD reoccurred in 26.5%. Following aGVHD diagnosis, mortality rates were 30.0% at 6 months and 37.3% at 12 months. Findings from this study demonstrate a continuing unmet need for new therapies that control aGVHD and improve mortality.

Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of ponatinib-based treatment for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL) has not been compared to imatinib-based treatments in head-to-head clinical trials. We evaluated its efficacy versus imatinib-based regimens using a matching adjusted indirect comparison. METHODS: Two ponatinib studies were used: the phase 2 MDACC study of ponatinib + hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) in adult patients and the phase 2 GIMEMA LAL1811 study of ponatinib + steroids in patients > 60 years/unfit for intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplant. Studies on imatinib as first-line treatment in adults with Ph + ALL were identified using a systematic literature search. Population adjustment was based on the prognostic factors and effect modifiers identified by clinical experts. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for complete molecular response (CMR). RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified two studies (GRAAPH-2005 and NCT00038610) reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib + hyper-CVAD and one study reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-based consolidation (CSI57ADE10). Ponatinib + hyper-CVAD prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib + hyper-CVAD. The adjusted HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS was 0.35 (0.17-0.74) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 0.35 (0.18-0.70) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610; the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 12.11 (3.77-38.87) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 5.65 (2.02-15.76) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610. Ponatinib + steroids prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-containing consolidation. The adjusted HR (95% CI) for OS was 0.24 (0.09-0.64) and the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 6.20 (1.60-24.00) for GIMEMA LAL1811 vs. CSI57ADE10. CONCLUSION: In adults with newly diagnosed Ph + ALL, first-line treatment with ponatinib was associated with better outcomes than first-line treatment with imatinib.

RE-MIND2: comparative effectiveness of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus polatuzumab vedotin/bendamustine/rituximab (pola-BR), CAR-T therapies, and lenalidomide/rituximab (R2) based on real-world data in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160) compared patient outcomes from the L-MIND (NCT02399085) trial of tafasitamab+lenalidomide with those of patients treated with other therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are autologous stem cell transplant ineligible. We present outcomes data for three pre-specified treatments not assessed in the primary analysis. Data were retrospectively collected from sites in North America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region. Patients were aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL and received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy). Patients enrolled in the observational and L-MIND cohorts were matched using propensity score-based 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching, balanced for six covariates. Tafasitamab+lenalidomide was compared with polatuzumab vedotin+bendamustine+rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab+lenalidomide (R2), and CD19-chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included treatment response and progression-free survival. From 200 sites, 3,454 patients were enrolled in the observational cohort. Strictly matched patient pairs consisted of tafasitamab+lenalidomide versus pola-BR (n = 24 pairs), versus R2 (n = 33 pairs), and versus CAR-T therapies (n = 37 pairs). A significant OS benefit was observed with tafasitamab+lenalidomide versus pola-BR (HR: 0.441; p = 0.034) and R2 (HR: 0.435; p = 0.012). Comparable OS was observed in tafasitamab+lenalidomide and CAR-T cohorts (HR: 0.953, p = 0.892). Tafasitamab+lenalidomide appeared to improve survival outcomes versus pola-BR and R2, and comparable outcomes were observed versus CAR-T. Although based on limited patient numbers, these data may help to contextualize emerging therapies for R/R DLBCL. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04697160 (January 6, 2021).

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide Versus 3 Rituximab-Based Treatments for Non-Transplant Eligible Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide (TAFA + LEN) received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval and conditional European Medicines Agency approval for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant. This study investigates the relative efficacy of TAFA + LEN versus comparator treatments. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) of TAFA + LEN were performed using data from L-MIND, and comparator studies assessing rituximab-based combination therapies, including polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (POLA + BR) bendamustine + rituximab (BR), and gemcitabine + oxaliplatin + rituximab (R-GEMOX) to provide relative efficacy estimates for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response rate (CRR). Patient-level data from L-MIND were weighted to match reported distributions of clinically validated prognostic factors and effect modifiers in comparator trials. MAIC results versus multiple BR studies were pooled using meta-analysis. RESULTS: MAICs were feasible versus POLA + BR and BR. Compared to POLA + BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly longer DOR [hazard ratio (HR) 0.34 (95% CI 0.12, 0.98); p = 0.045]. Due to concerns about the proportional hazard assumption for OS and PFS, separate HRs were estimated before and after 4 months of follow-up. OS after 4 months, was significantly greater for TAFA + LEN versus POLA + BR [HR 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.90); p = 0.026]. Compared with BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly improved OS [GO29365 comparator trial: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.82); p = 0.014], PFS (pooled data: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.29, 0.53); p < 0.001], DOR [pooled data: HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.25, 0.50); p < 0.001], and CRR [pooled data: odds ratio 2.43 (95% CI 1.33, 4.41); p = 0.004]. CONCLUSION: In MAIC analyses, treatment with TAFA + LEN for R/R DLBCL provided better OS and PFS outcomes than standard treatment regimens. Validation from large, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials is required to confirm these results.

Tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide has been recently approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. There are no clinical trials to directly compare the outcomes of tafasitamab + lenalidomide against other treatments for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons allow an estimate of the relative efficacy of treatments to be derived in the absence of head-to-head comparisons from clinical trials. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons analyses utilizing data from previously published clinical trials were conducted to compare the combination of tafasitamab + lenalidomide against 3 standard treatments for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab, bendamustine + rituximab, and rituximab + gemcitabine + oxaliplatin. Compared to those treated with polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab, patients treated with TAFA + LEN maintained their response to treatment for longer and are more likely to experience long-term survival. When compared to those treated with bendamustine + rituximab, patients treated with TAFA + LEN had increased survival, a higher level of response, and maintained their response to treatment for longer. Overall, the findings suggest that treatment with TAFA + LEN for R/R DLBCL is likely to result in significantly better outcomes compared with standard rituximab-based treatments.

Burden of hospitalizations and outpatient visits associated with moderate and severe acute graft-versus-host disease in Finland and Sweden: a real-world data study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe patient characteristics and quantify hospital stays and outpatient visits (H&OV) following diagnosis with moderate-to-severe acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in Finland and Sweden. METHODS: A retrospective chart audit collected data from patient medical records of 3 specialized centers performing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT; Finland, n = 2; Sweden, n = 1). Eligible patients received allogeneic HSCT (January 1, 2016-June 30, 2017) from any donor source, were diagnosed with grade II-IV aGVHD (MAGIC or modified Glucksberg criteria) at any time from transplantation to 12 months before data collection, and were ≥ 18 years old at diagnosis. Criteria for comparing patients graded with modified Glucksberg and MAGIC severity scales were defined. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (Finland, n = 45; Sweden, n = 10) were included. Myeloablative conditioning was the most common conditioning regimen (81.8%); immunosuppression regimens were based on combinations of methotrexate (96.4%), in vivo T-cell depletion (80.0%), cyclosporine (63.6%), mycophenolate (40.0%), and tacrolimus (34.5%). Sixteen patients (29.1%) developed grade III/IV aGVHD; skin was the most common organ involved (80.0%). Most patients required ≥ 1 hospital stay (89.1%; median of 2 hospitalizations per patient); 7 patients (14.3%) required admission to an intensive care unit. Median hospitalization duration from HSCT to discharge was 26 days. Most patients also required outpatient or emergency department visits (90.9%). Subgroup analyses showed longer hospital stays for patients receiving multiple treatment lines; no clear differences in H&OV were observed between prophylactic regimens. CONCLUSION: Based on this retrospective study, moderate-to-severe aGVHD is associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization in Finland and Sweden, particularly in patients who received multiple lines of therapy.

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US.

AIMS: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled. LIMITATIONS: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America.

OBJECTIVE: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives. METHODS: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters. LIMITATIONS: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. CONCLUSION: Denosumab's efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.

Relationship between the Uncompensated Price Elasticity and the Income Elasticity of Demand under Conditions of Additive Preferences.

Income and price elasticity of demand quantify the responsiveness of markets to changes in income and in prices, respectively. Under the assumptions of utility maximization and preference independence (additive preferences), mathematical relationships between income elasticity values and the uncompensated own and cross price elasticity of demand are here derived using the differential approach to demand analysis. Key parameters are: the elasticity of the marginal utility of income, and the average budget share. The proposed method can be used to forecast the direct and indirect impact of price changes and of financial instruments of policy using available estimates of the income elasticity of demand.

Selection and quantification of infection endpoints for trials of vaccines against intestinal helminths.

Vaccines against human helminths are being developed but the choice of optimal parasitological endpoints and effect measures to assess their efficacy has received little attention. Assuming negative binomial distributions for the parasite counts, we rank the statistical power of three measures of efficacy: ratio of mean parasite intensity at the end of the trial, the odds ratio of infection at the end of the trial, and the rate ratio of incidence of infection during the trial. We also use a modelling approach to estimate the likely impact of trial interventions on the force of infection, and hence statistical power. We conclude that (1) final mean parasite intensity is a suitable endpoint for later phase vaccine trials, and (2) mass effects of trial interventions are unlikely to appreciably reduce the force of infection in the community - and hence statistical power - unless there is a combination of high vaccine efficacy and a large proportion of the population enrolled.

Effect of heterogeneous mixing and vaccination on the dynamics of anthelmintic resistance: a nested model.

Anthelmintic resistance is a major threat to current measures for helminth control in humans and animals. The introduction of anthelmintic vaccines, as a complement to or replacement for drug treatments, has been advocated as a preventive measure. Here, a computer-based simulation, tracking the dynamics of hosts, parasites and parasite-genes, shows that, depending on the degree of host-population mixing, the frequency of totally recessive autosomes associated with anthelmintic resistance can follow either a fast dynamical regime with a low equilibrium point or a slow dynamical regime with a high equilibrium point. For fully dominant autosomes, only one regime is predicted. The effectiveness of anthelminthic vaccines against resistance is shown to be strongly influenced by the underlying dynamics of resistant autosomes. Vaccines targeting adult parasites, by decreasing helminth fecundity or lifespan, are predicted to be more effective than vaccines targeting parasite larvae, by decreasing host susceptibility to infection, in reducing the spread of resistance. These results may inform new strategies to prevent, monitor and control the spread of anthelmintic resistance, including the development of viable anthelmintic vaccines.

Epidemiological benefits of more-effective tuberculosis vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supports an ambitious portfolio of novel vaccines, drug regimens, and diagnostic tools for tuberculosis (TB). We elicited the expected efficacies and improvements of the novel interventions in discussions with the foundations managing their development. Using an age-structured mathematical model of TB, we explored the potential benefits of novel interventions under development and those not yet in the portfolio, focusing on the WHO Southeast Asia region. Neonatal vaccination with the portfolio vaccine decreases TB incidence by 39% to 52% by 2050. Drug regimens that shorten treatment duration and are efficacious against drug-resistant strains reduce incidence by 10-27%. New diagnostics reduce incidence by 13-42%. A triple combination of a portfolio vaccine, drug regimen, and diagnostics reduces incidence by 71%. A short mass vaccination catch-up campaign, not yet in the portfolio, to augment the triple combination, accelerates the decrease, preventing >30% more cases by 2050 than just the triple combination. New vaccines and drug regimens targeted at the vast reservoir of latently infected people, not in the portfolio, would reduce incidence by 37% and 82%, respectively. The combination of preventive latent therapy and a 2-month drug treatment regimen reduces incidence by 94%. Novel technologies in the pipeline would achieve substantial reductions in TB incidence, but not the Stop TB Partnership target for elimination. Elimination will require new delivery strategies, such as mass vaccination campaigns, and new products targeted at latently infected people.