Reporting on patient's body mass index (BMI) in recent clinical trials for patients with breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of patients with breast cancer and obesity is increasing. While the therapeutic landscape of breast cancer has been expanding, we lack knowledge about the potential differential efficacy of most drugs according to the body mass index (BMI). Here, we conducted a systematic review on recent clinical drug trials to document the dosing regimen of recent drugs, the reporting of BMI and the possible exclusion of patients according to BMI, other adiposity measurements and/or diabetes (leading comorbidity of obesity). We further explored whether treatment efficacy was evaluated according to BMI. METHODS: A search of Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to identify phase I-IV trials investigating novel systemic breast cancer treatments. Dosing regimens and exclusion based on BMI, adiposity measurements or diabetes, documentation of BMI and subgroup analyses according to BMI were assessed. RESULTS: 495 trials evaluating 26 different drugs were included. Most of the drugs (21/26, 81%) were given in a fixed dose independent of patient weight. BMI was an exclusion criterion in 3 out of 495 trials. Patients with diabetes, the leading comorbidity of obesity, were excluded in 67/495 trials (13.5%). Distribution of patients according to BMI was mentioned in 8% of the manuscripts, subgroup analysis was performed in 2 trials. No other measures of adiposity/body composition were mentioned in any of the trials. Retrospective analyses on the impact of BMI were performed in 6 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Patient adiposity is hardly considered as most novel drug treatments are given in a fixed dose. BMI is generally not reported in recent trials and few secondary analyses are performed. Given the prevalence of patients with obesity and the impact obesity can have on pharmacokinetics and cancer biology, more attention should be given by investigators and study sponsors to reporting patient's BMI and evaluating its impact on treatment efficacy and toxicity.

Cause of death for patients with breast cancer: discordance between death certificates and medical files, and impact on survival estimates.

BACKGROUND: Registration and coding of cause of death is prone to error since determining the exact underlying condition leading directly to death is challenging. In this study, causes of death from the death certificates were compared to patients' medical files interpreted by experts at University Hospitals Leuven (UHL), to assess concordance between sources and its impact on cancer survival assessment. METHODS: Breast cancer patients treated at UHL (2009-2014) (follow-up until December 31st 2016) were included in this study. Cause of death was obtained from death certificates and expert-reviewed medical files at UHL. Agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Cause-specific survival (CSS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the relative survival probability (RS) using the Ederer II and Pohar Perme method. RESULTS: A total of 2862 patients, of whom 354 died, were included. We found an agreement of 84.7% (kappa-value of 0.69 (95% C.I.: 0.62-0.77)) between death certificates and medical files. Death certificates had 10.7% false positive and 4.5% false negative rates. However, five-year CSS and RS measures were comparable for both sources. CONCLUSION: For breast cancer patients included in our study, fair agreement of cause of death was seen between death certificates and medical files with similar CSS and RS estimations.

Longitudinal observational studies to study the efficacy-effectiveness gap in drug therapy: application to mild and moderate dementia.

If well-designed, longitudinal observational studies (LOSs) can provide insights to the linkages between real-world outcomes and their multilevel determinants. In this article, some of the scientific and methodologic issues related to LOSs in pharmacotherapeutic evaluations are discussed. A case of such a study in the treatment of mild to moderate dementia is provided-a case in which a pharmaceutic sponsor addressing a medical question (long-term effectiveness) realized that caring for patients who have Alzheimer's disease involves the clinical community of caregivers, physicians, families, nurses, psychologists, and pharmacists, among others, and partnered with nurse researchers to design their inquiry. The authors conclude by presenting an argument for nurses to take the lead in effectiveness research.

Patient and caregiver outcomes after 6 +/- 1.5-months of rivastigmine therapy for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: the Belgian FExT study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite response variability, cholinesterase inhibitors are recommended in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Dose titration is common; however randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have mainly investigated fixed-dose regimens. We examined practice patterns and outcomes of 6 +/- 1.5-month rivastigmine therapy. METHODS: Prospective, pharmacoepidemiologic, naturalistic study of 175 evaluable patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (+ 151 caregivers) from 52 centers in Belgium on 6 +/- 1.5 month (titrated) rivastigmine treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measured at baseline (enrollment) and follow-up (6 +/- 1.5 months). For patients: Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) scores; treatment response (improvement, maintenance, or decline less than normative slope). For caregivers: hours/week spent caring; Zarit Caregiver Burden Scale (ZCBS), 12-item version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scores. RESULTS: Patients' MMSE and NPI scores (p < 0.001) improved from baseline to follow-up, but not ADL and GDS scores. Treatment response was 89.1% of patients for MMSE (including 60.6% with improvement) and 77.7% for NPI (including 57.1% with improvement). Quadratic curves were fitted for the average daily dose and the MMSE and NPI scores; with a trend towards average daily dose of 6.0 +/- 3.0 mg/day. Caregivers' ZCBS (p = 0.036) and GHQ-12 (p = 0.029) scores improved, but not IADL scores and time spent caring. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' MMSE and ADL scores confirmed the meta-analyses of rivastigmine efficacy trials, while NPI scores exceeded efficacy results. Proportionately more patients responded to (titrated) treatment than in fixed-dose RCTs. Caregivers reported less burden (similar to meta-analysis) and better general health over the study period. Where efficacy and effectiveness results diverge, the benefit is in 'real-world' effectiveness. Large sample, multi-country replications, less sensitive to censoring secondary to missing data and powered to permit advanced modeling, as well as RCTs with adaptive designs to accommodate titration, are needed. The profile of patients most likely to benefit from treatment or most vulnerable to treatment outcome must be studied, as must the impact of physician- and center-related variables on outcomes.