Satisfaction and practicality of a prefilled glatiramer acetate pen in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients.

Aim: Evaluation of practicality and patient satisfaction of a glatiramer acetate (GA) prefilled pen in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Patients & methods: A cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study evaluating patients' experiences with the GA-pen 3 months after its first use by means of self-reporting questionnaires. Primary end point was the proportion of patients who were satisfied with the pen. Results: 80 patients participated in the study. The majority (83.7%) was satisfied with the pen and 95% rated its application as easy or very easy. Conclusion: Most patients were satisfied with the GA-pen and rated its application as easy or very easy. Among the 12 device features, starting the injection without an injection button was considered the most appreciated feature. Improvements in pen functionality and design might allow patients to overcome many difficulties with self-injection, even those leading to nonadherence. But, this hypothesis awaits further validation by real-world follow-up studies.

When patients with relapsing­remitting multiple sclerosis are treated with an injectable multiple sclerosis (MS) medication like glatiramer acetate (GA), doctors and patients have to think about the different methods of administration such as syringe or pen. This study aimed to assess the practicality and patient satisfaction with a prefilled pen containing GA in individuals with relapsing­remitting multiple sclerosis. The study involved 80 patients and used self-reporting questionnaires to evaluate their experiences with the GA pen. The results showed that most of the patients were satisfied with the GA pen and found the application of the pen to be easy or very easy. Starting the injection without the need for an additional button press was particularly well received by patients. These findings suggest that improvements in the functionality and design of the pen may help patients overcome challenges associated with self-injection.

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in patients with migraine switching from another mAb targeting the CGRP pathway: a subgroup analysis of the Finesse Study.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are effective and safe for prophylactic treatment of episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). In case of treatment failure of a CGRP pathway targeting mAb, physician has to decide whether using another anti-CGRP pathway mAb is useful. This interim analysis of Finesse Study evaluates effectiveness of the anti-CGRP mAb fremanezumab in patients with a history of other prior anti-CGRP pathway mAb treatments (switch patients). METHODS: FINESSE, a non-interventional, prospective, multicentre, two-country (Germany-Austria) study observing migraine patients receiving fremanezumab in clinical routine. This subgroup analysis presents data on documented effectiveness over 3 months after the first dose of fremanezumab in switch patients. Effectiveness was evaluated based on reduction in average number of migraine days per month (MMDs), MIDAS and HIT-6 scores changes as well as in number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three out of 867 patients with a history of anti-CGRP pathway mAb treatment prior to initiation of fremanezumab were analysed. Switch to fremanezumab led to ≥ 50% MMD reduction in 42.8% of migraine patients, with higher response rate in EM (48.0%) than in CM patients (36.5%). A ≥ 30% MMD reduction was achieved by 58.7% in CM patients. After three months, monthly number of migraine days decreased by 6.4 ± 5.87 (baseline: 13.6 ± 6.5; p < 0.0001) in all patients, 5.2 ± 4.04 in EM and 7.7 ± 7.45 in CM patients. MIDAS scores decreased from 73.3 ± 56.8 (baseline) to 50.3 ± 52.9 (after 3 months; p = 0.0014), HIT-6 scores decreased from 65.9 ± 5.0 to 60.9 ± 7.2 (p < 0.0001). Concomitant use of acute migraine medication had decreased from 9.7 ± 4.98 (baseline) to 4.9 ± 3.66 (3 months) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that about 42.8% of anti-CGRP pathway mAb-non-responder benefit from switching to fremanezumab. These results suggest that switching to fremanezumab may be a promising option for patients experiencing poor tolerability or inadequate efficacy with prior other anti-CGRP pathway mAb use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: FINESSE Study is registered on the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (EUPAS44606).

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR.

OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence on the application of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor lipegfilgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) is limited. The NADIR study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of lipegfilgrastim as primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The non-interventional study NADIR (German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) Number DRKS00005711) enrolled 156 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 145 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who received lipegfilgrastim during chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the incidence of severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) and FN. The analysis was stratified for age groups (≤65 years vs. >65 years). RESULTS: Approximately half of the patients were aged >65 years (SCLC 54.5%; NSCLC 46.9%). Intention of antineoplastic treatment was mostly palliative (SCLC 89.1%; NSCLC 73.1%). Patients with high FN risk (SCLC 44.9%; NSCLC 28.3%) mostly received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis (SCLC 81.4%; NSCLC 70.7%). FN was reported in 1.9% SCLC and 1.4% NSCLC patients. At least one severe neutropenia was documented in 30.1% SCLC and 17.9% NSCLC patients. For NSCLC patients aged >65 years, less severe neutropenia was reported as compared to younger patients (14.7% vs. 20.8%). Lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events were reported in 10.3% SCLC and 7.7% NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION: Lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice of patients with lung cancer showed similar effectiveness and safety as compared to the pivotal trial. Interestingly, in older patients severe neutropenia was reported less frequently. While most patients with high FN risk received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis as recommended, there are still 20-30% of patients at high FN risk without primary prophylaxis who could benefit from better adherence to guidelines.

Prophylaxis of Neutropenia with Lipegfilgrastim in Breast Cancer Patients with Dose-Dense Chemotherapy: Results of a Noninterventional Study on Therapeutic Routine in Germany (NADENS).

Introduction: Noninterventional study (NIS) on application and effectiveness of primary G-CSF prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim in primary breast cancer patients undergoing dose-dense (dd) or intense-dose-dense (idd) chemotherapy (CTx) regimen in daily clinical practice. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, single-arm, NIS in 41 private practices and 27 hospitals in Germany. Results: Data analysis of 282 patients with a mean age of 49 years (93.6% of patients <65 years) was performed. Hormone receptor status was triple negative in 29.8% of patients, and 81.9% of patients were HER2 negative. A total of 73.8% of patients received "EC dd → taxane CTx." Patients received lipegfilgrastim prophylaxis in 97.5% of 1,121 documented dd/idd cycles. Overall, the study registered 275 events of SN (CTCAE grade 3 or 4) and 9 events of FN. During the first dd cycle, SN occurred in 33.3% and FN in 1.1% of patients. CTx delay or dose reduction due to neutropenia was required in 2.5% of patients during the 4 dd cycles with lipegfilgrastim support. Overall, 314 adverse events (AEs) were reported from 107 patients and 27 serious AEs from 21 patients. None of the SAEs was "fatal," and CTCAE grade was mostly (89.6%) assessed as "1" or "2." According to the treating physicians, 99.3% of all patients benefitted from lipegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and tolerability was mostly rated "very good" or "good." Conclusion: These results suggest that primary lipegfilgrastim prophylaxis is effective and safe in clinical routine and is beneficial in primary breast cancer patients undergoing dd/idd-ETC CTx.