Treatment dynamics of bone-targeting agents among men with bone metastases from prostate cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: To examine the dynamics of treatment with 2 bone-targeting agents (BTAs)-denosumab and zoledronic acid-among men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from oncology practices across the US, we identified prostate cancer patients diagnosed with bone metastasis in 2012/2013 without evidence of BTA use within 6 months prior to diagnosis. We examined the risk and predictors of BTA initiation, interruption, and re-initiation. RESULTS: Among 897 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, the cumulative incidence of BTA initiation after bone metastasis diagnosis was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-37%) at 30 days, 64% (95% CI, 61-68%) at 180 days, and 88% (95% CI, 85-91%) at 2 years. Denosumab was initiated more frequently than zoledronic acid. Men with diabetes, more bone lesions, history of androgen deprivation therapy, or no hospice enrollment were more likely to initiate treatment. Following initiation, the cumulative incidence of treatment interruption was 17% (95% CI, 14-19%) at 60 days and 70% (95% CI, 66-74%) at 2 years, with interruption more likely among patients receiving emerging therapies for prostate cancer or enrolling in hospice. The cumulative incidence of re-initiation following interruption was 36.3% (95% CI, 32.7-40.2%) at 15 days, 49.8% (95% CI, 45.9-54.1%) at 30 days, and 81.0% (95% CI, 77.5-84.7%) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Bone-targeting agent therapy is initiated by the majority of men living with bone metastases following a prostate cancer diagnosis; however, the timing of initiation is highly variable. Once on treatment, gaps or interruptions in therapy are common.

Delay of CMV infection in high-risk CMV mismatch lung transplant recipients due to prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common opportunistic infection in lung transplant recipients. Despite the use of early post-operative intravenous ganciclovir, most high-risk patients develop CMV infection. We conducted this retrospective study to determine the efficacy of extended CMV prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir in high-risk, donor-positive-recipient-negative, lung recipients. All patients initially received 3 months of intravenous ganciclovir and CMV hyperimmune globulin. Clinical outcomes in all CMV mismatch patients undergoing lung transplant surviving at least 3 months were included (n = 42). Since 1998, 14 patients received no oral ganciclovir prophylaxis (group 1) and 28 patients received indefinite oral ganciclovir after completion of intravenous therapy (group 2). In those patients receiving oral ganciclovir, the prevalence of post-transplant CMV infection was significantly reduced over the first 180 d post-transplant (50% in group 1 vs. 4% in group 2; p < 0.001). Although some CMV events were observed with additional follow-up in group 2, there remained a significantly greater freedom from CMV infection by Kaplan-Meier analysis in group 2 as compared with group 1, with over 30 months follow-up time in each group (log-rank, p = 0.02). A moderate rate of drug discontinuation was observed in group 2, and no severe drug-related events occurred. In high-risk lung transplant recipients, CMV prophylaxis with intravenous ganciclovir, followed by indefinite oral ganciclovir, significantly delays and reduces post-transplant CMV infections. A larger prospective randomized study is needed to confirm the benefits of oral ganciclovir on CMV prevention.