Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Stratified by Stage-Guided Treatment Categories.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the survival and treatment patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) stratified by the NCCN stage-guided treatment categories in the absence of a universally accepted staging system for HCC. METHODS: Patients with HCC were identified using ICD-9 codes and inclusion in the Huntsman Cancer Institute tumor registry. Patients were stratified by the NCCN groupings around the time of diagnosis as potentially resectable or operable (RESECT), potentially transplantable (TRANSP), unresectable (UNRESECT), inoperable due to performance status (INOPER), or having metastatic (METAST) disease. Survival and treatment patterns were assessed by NCCN stage-guided treatment categories. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients (72.9% men) with HCC were identified. At the time of diagnosis, patients were categorized as RESECT (n=28, 12.7%), TRANSP (n=33, 14.9%), UNRESECT (n=77, 34.8%), INOPER (n=40, 18.1%), and METAST (n=38, 17.2%). Staging information was not specified for 5 patients (2.3%) even after chart review. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival between RESECT and UNRESECT categories, and between UNRESECT and METAST categories. The median survivals in RESECT, TRANSP, UNRESECT, INOPER, and METAST categories were 594, 562, 247, 167, and 44 days, respectively. Patients considered RESECT most frequently underwent resection (61%, n=17) and patients considered TRANSP had the highest use of liver transplants (33.3%, n=11). Use of any treatment was low in the METAST (31.6%, n=12) and INOPER (60.0%, n=24) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns in the NCCN groupings correlated with recommended treatment strategies. Overall, the NCCN groupings have a linear relationship in overall survival.

Response monitoring, tolerability, and effectiveness of imatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia in a retrospective research database.

Retrospective review of imatinib monitoring through electronic health records (EHR) can provide valuable insight into the current management of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). This study retrospectively reviewed EHRs from 2001 to 2010 of patients with chronic phase CML (CP-CML) treated with first-line imatinib. Chart evaluations included a review of cytogenetic and molecular testing, overall survival, adverse drug events (ADEs), and therapy modifications. A total of 54 patients with CP-CML were treated with first-line imatinib and had either cytogenetic or molecular testing within 18 months of imatinib initiation. Within the first 18 months of treatment, 33 of 45 patients (73%) undergoing cytogenetic testing experienced a complete cytogenetic response (median, 241 days; range, 110-542 days) and 24 of 48 patients (50%) receiving molecular testing achieved at least a major molecular response (median, 253 days; range, 99-546 days). The average number of cytogenetic and molecular tests conducted within the first 18 months was 2.5 and 3.8, respectively. Nineteen of 54 (35%) had a dose increase of imatinib (>400 mg; median, 329 days; range, 21-1968 days). The 5-year estimated overall survival rate was 88.5%. Between 2006 and 2010 (n=30; 56%), 7 patients (23%) transitioned to dasatinib or nilotinib (median, 399 days from diagnosis; range, 180-1046 days) because of suboptimal response or treatment failure (n=5) and imatinib ADEs (n=2). Forty-six imatinib-associated ADEs occurred in 31 patients (57%), of which 10 (32%) received dose reductions (median, 52 days) and 6 (19%) had discontinuations (median, 139 days). Closely monitored patients with CML treated with imatinib at an NCCN Member Institution experienced outcomes comparable to those reported in key clinical trials.

Single- Versus Multiple-Drug Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Diabetic Painful Neuropathy.

This study compared patient characteristics and health care costs between newly treated diabetic painful neuropathy (DPN) patients receiving mono- pharmacotherapy and those receiving combination pharmacotherapy. A retrospective cohort was developed through Inovalon's Medical Outcomes Research for Effectiveness and Economics Registry (MORE2) database. Patients included were ≥18 years on the date of first DPN prescription: tricyclic antidepressant, opioids, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin, or lidocaine. The authors conducted a simple proportional hazards model comparing times to discontinuation, switch, or addon. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of combination pharmacotherapy. There were 7145 patients on mono-pharmacotherapy and 421 patients on combination pharmacotherapy. Patients receiving combination pharmacotherapy were 130% more likely to discontinue their medications than patients receiving mono-pharmacotherapy. Female patients and those with > 7 comorbidities were more likely to be started with combination pharmacotherapy. Elderly patients were less likely to be started with combination pharmacotherapy. The total cost of care difference between mono- and combination pharmacotherapy was not statistically significant (P = .66); therefore, newly treated DPN patients should add on another medication sooner than 30 days when considering combination pharmacotherapy. All first-line medications have similar efficacy; for this reason, cost should be considered in the treatment decision.

Real-world evidence in pain research: a review of data sources.

Outcomes research studies use clinical and administrative data generated in the course of patient care or from patient surveys to examine the effectiveness of treatments. Health care providers need to understand the limitations and strengths of the real-world data sources used in outcomes studies to meaningfully use the results. This paper describes five types of databases commonly used in the United States for outcomes research studies, discusses their strengths and limitations, and provides examples of each within the context of pain treatment. The databases specifically discussed are generated from (1) electronic medical records, which are created from patient-provider interactions; (2) administrative claims, which are generated from providers' and patients' transactions with payers; (3) integrated health systems, which are generated by systems that provide both clinical care and insurance benefits and typically represent a combination of electronic medical record and claims data; (4) national surveys, which provide patient-reported responses about their health and behaviors; and (5) patient registries, which are developed to track patients with a given disease or exposure over time for specified purposes, such as population management, safety monitoring, or research.

The pharmacoeconomics of breakthrough cancer pain.

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTP) has a significant impact on patients' activities of daily living, family, and the society; however, the economic ramifications of BTP are largely unknown. This review aims to summarize the available pharmacoeconomics studies of BTP in the context of the availability of several formulations of rapid-onset opioids administered by various routes, which are significantly more expensive than oral opioids. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Tufts registry through August 2012 was conducted using key words including "breakthrough cancer pain" and "cost effectiveness." After exclusion of irrelevant articles, a total of six articles were included. Studies reviewed include two economic survey studies, two quality improvement projects, and two decision-analytic models. These studies demonstrate BTP causes significant financial burden to patients and society through increased hospitalization and health care utilization. Only one study comparing placebo with intranasal fentanyl spray, oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate, and oral transmucosal fentanyl buccal tablet has demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of these rapid-onset opioids for the treatment of BTP. Overall, there is a lack of pharmacoeconomic studies for BTP management with rapid-onset opioids. Further study is warranted assessing the net benefit of rapid-onset opioids to oral opioids to assist decision-making by patients, clinicians, and payers.