Obesity and Survival After Immune Checkpoint Inhibition for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: For patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), recent data suggest that obesity has a beneficial effect on survival outcomes in various cancer types. Reports on this association in head and neck cancer are limited. Objectives: To compare overall survival (OS) to 5 years and functional outcomes in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with ICIs based on pretreatment body mass index (BMI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study used data obtained from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network database to identify patients with HNSCC who received ICI treatment between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2023, resulting in a total of 166 patients (83 with BMI of 20.0-24.9 [normal BMI] and 83 with BMI of ≥30.0 [obesity BMI]) after propensity score matching (PSM) for pretreatment medical comorbidities and oncologic staging. Exposure: Normal BMI vs obesity BMI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival and functional outcomes (dysphagia, tracheostomy dependence, and gastrostomy tube dependence) were measured to 5 years after ICI treatment and compared between patients with obesity BMI and normal BMI. Additional analyses compared OS and functional outcomes in the cohort with normal BMI and cohorts with overweight BMI (25.0-29.9) and underweight BMI (<20.0). Results: Among the 166 patients included in the PSM analysis (112 men [67.1%]; mean [SD] age, 62.9 [15.4] years), obesity BMI was associated with significantly improved OS at 6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31-0.96]), 3 years (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.83]), and 5 years (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.44-0.86]) after ICI treatment, compared with patients with normal BMI. Obesity BMI was also associated with decreased risk of gastrostomy tube dependence at 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21-0.80]), 1 year (OR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21-0.78]), 3 years (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.18-0.65]), and 5 years (OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.18-0.65]). Obesity was also associated with decreased risk for tracheostomy dependence at 1 year (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.28-0.90]), 3 years (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.45-0.90]), and 5 years (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.45-0.90]). There were no differences in rates of dysphagia or immune-related adverse events between cohorts at any points. Conclusions and Relevance: Using population-level data for patients with HNSCC treated with ICIs, these results suggest that having obesity was associated with improved 6-month, 3-year, and 5-year OS compared with having normal BMI. Additionally, obesity was associated with decreased gastrostomy and tracheostomy tube dependence compared with normal BMI. Further investigation is required to understand the mechanism of these findings.

Screening study of anti-emetics to improve GDF15-induced malaise and anorexia: Implications for emesis control.

Considerable preclinical and clinical attention has focused on the food intake and body weight suppressive effects of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) and its elevated blood levels as a consequence of disease states and disease treatment therapeutics. We have previously reported that exogenous administration of GDF15 induces anorexia through nausea and emesis in multiple species. Importantly, GDF15 signaling as a meditator of chemotherapy-induced anorexia and emesis has recently been demonstrated in both murine and nonhuman primate models. The mechanism, however, by which GDF15 induces malaise and the utility of existing therapeutic targets to counteract its effects remain largely unknown. Using a dose of GDF15 that mimics stimulated levels following chemotherapy administration and reliably induces malaise, we sought to screen anti-emetics that represent distinct pharmacotherapeutic classes hypothesized to reduce GDF15-induced effects in rats. Strikingly, our results showed that none of the tested compounds were effective at preventing GDF15-induced malaise. These results illustrate the complexity of GDF15 signaling mechanism and may have important implications for medical conditions characterized by elevated GDF15 levels and incomplete symptom control, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Costs of adalimumab versus infliximab as first-line biological therapy for luminal Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Randomised controlled trials demonstrate that the anti-tumour necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) therapies infliximab and adalimumab are effective in inducing remission and preventing relapse of Crohn's disease (CD). As few studies have compared costs and efficacy of these two drugs directly, we examined this issue. METHODS: Data were collected for patients receiving either drug as first-line anti-TNFα for CD. Patients were matched as closely as possible on age, gender, weight, height, and date of commencement of therapy. Response to induction therapy was assessed at 12weeks, and sustained clinical benefit at last point of follow-up. Resource data were collected for all patients until study end, with National Health Services reference costs applied to calculate the total cost per patient with adalimumab compared with infliximab. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients had been treated with adalimumab as first-line anti-TNFα since 2010. We matched an identical number of infliximab patients. Demographic data were similar between the two groups. Costs were significantly lower with adalimumab (£6692.95 less per patient (95% confidence interval £1816.61-£11569.29)), which was largely driven by the drug costs and drug administration costs associated with infliximab. Twenty-nine (80.6%) patients responded to induction therapy with both drugs, and 22 (61.1%) achieved glucocorticosteroid-free sustained clinical benefit with either drug at last point of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of infliximab used as first-line anti-TNFα therapy are greater, which may have implications for selection. Clinical outcomes appeared comparable, although power to detect a statistically significant difference would be limited.