Patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2 study comparing atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. RESULTS: Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

Reliability and validity of PROMIS measures administered by telephone interview in a longitudinal localized prostate cancer study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of six PROMIS measures (anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, and sleep disturbance) telephone-administered to a diverse, population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed men were enrolled in the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study. PROMIS measures were telephone-administered pre-treatment (baseline), and at 3-months and 12-months post-treatment initiation (N = 778). Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Dimensionality was examined with bifactor models and explained common variance (ECV). Ordinal logistic regression models were used to detect potential differential item functioning (DIF) for key demographic groups. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed by correlations with the legacy instruments Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer and SF-12v2. Known-groups validity was examined by age, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, and treatment. RESULTS: Each PROMIS measure had high Cronbach's alpha values (0.86-0.96) and was sufficiently unidimensional. Floor effects were observed for anxiety, depression, and pain interference measures; ceiling effects were observed for physical function. No DIF was detected. Convergent validity was established with moderate to strong correlations between PROMIS and legacy measures (0.41-0.77) of similar constructs. Discriminant validity was demonstrated with weak correlations between measures of dissimilar domains (-0.20--0.31). PROMIS measures detected differences across age, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity groups; no differences were found by treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the reliability and construct validity of six PROMIS measures in prostate cancer, as well as the utility of telephone administration for assessing HRQoL in low literacy and hard-to-reach populations.

Impact of colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life among older Americans: a population-based, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) changes among Americans aged ≥65 following colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and treatment are limited. This study compared HRQoL changes among CRC patients across stages from before to after diagnosis with matched noncancer controls. METHODS: This population-based study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) data set (1998-2007). Medicare Advantage beneficiaries diagnosed with CRC between their baseline and follow-up MHOS (n = 349) were matched to noncancer controls (n = 1745) using propensity scores. Mixed-effects analysis of covariance models estimated changes in HRQoL (measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36/Veterans RAND 12-item Survey) and the ability to perform 6 activities of daily living (ADLs) between baseline and follow-up. Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios for ADL impairments and major depressive disorder (MDD) risk. RESULTS: Mean time between CRC diagnosis and follow-up MHOS was 12.3 ± 9.8 months. Compared with controls, CRC patients had significantly lower scores in all physical and mental health domains at follow-up. The greatest decrements were observed in physical health and were largely driven by declines in the 6 months postdiagnosis and in stage III and IV patients. At follow-up, CRC patients had greater overall ADL impairment and difficulty with dressing, eating, and getting in/out of chairs. CRC patients, particularly stage IV patients, had greater odds of being at risk for MDD relative to controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study further underscores the adverse effects of CRC on physical health and the need to support older Americans' basic self-care needs, with attention to later-stage patients' increased debility.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from the Phase III Randomized IMmotion151 Trial: Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab versus Sunitinib in Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were evaluated in the phase III IMmotion151 trial (NCT02420821) to inform overall treatment/disease burden of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenous (i.v.) infusions every 3 weeks (q3w) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. q3w or sunitinib 50 mg per day orally 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at baseline, q3w during treatment, at end of treatment, and during survival follow-up. Longitudinal and time to deterioration (TTD) analyses for core and RCC symptoms and their interference with daily life, treatment side-effect bother, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 454 and 461 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sunitinib arms, respectively. Completion rates for each instrument were 83% to 86% at baseline and ≥ 70% through week 54. Milder symptoms, less symptom interference and treatment side-effect bother, and better HRQOL at most visits were reported with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib. The TTD HR (95% CI) favored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for core (HR, 0.50; 0.40-0.62) and RCC symptoms (HR, 0.45; 0.37-0.55), symptom interference (HR, 0.56; 0.46-0.68), and HRQOL (HR, 0.68; 0.58-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: PROs in IMmotion151 suggest lower overall treatment burden with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC and provide further evidence for clinical benefit of this regimen.

Cost and effectiveness of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis in a commercially insured population.

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims contain detailed medication, diagnosis, and procedure data, but the lack of clinical outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) historically has limited their use in comparative effectiveness research. A claims-based algorithm was developed and validated to estimate effectiveness for RA from data for adherence, dosing, and treatment modifications. OBJECTIVE: To implement the claims-based algorithm in a U.S. managed care database to estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient. METHODS: The cohort included patients with RA aged 18-63 years in the Optum Research Database who initiated biologic treatment between January 2007 and December 2010 and were continuously enrolled 6 months before through 12 months after the first claim for the biologic (the index date). Patients were categorized as effectively treated by the claims-based algorithm if they met all of the following 6 criteria in the 12-month post-index period: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥ 80% for subcutaneous biologics, or at least as many infusions as specified in U.S. labeling for intravenous biologics; (2) no increase in biologic dose; (3) no switch in biologics; (4) no new nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid treatment; and (6) no more than 1 glucocorticoid injection. Drug costs (all biologics) and administration costs (intravenous biologics) were obtained from allowed amounts on claims. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total 1-year biologic cost divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated with that index biologic. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the total health care costs per effectively treated patient during the first year of biologic therapy. RESULTS: A total of 5,474 individuals were included in the analysis. The index biologic was categorized as effective by the algorithm for 28.9% of patients overall, including 30.6% for subcutaneous biologics and 22.1% for intravenous biologics. The index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year for 32.7% of etanercept (794/2,425), 32.3% of golimumab (40/124), 30.2% of abatacept (89/295), 27.7% of adalimumab (514/1,857), and 19.0% of infliximab (147/773) patients. Mean 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined in the algorithm, was lowest for etanercept ($43,935), followed by golimumab ($49,589), adalimumab ($52,752), abatacept ($62,300), and infliximab ($101,402). The rank order in the sensitivity analysis was the same, except for golimumab and etanercept.  CONCLUSIONS: Using a claims-based algorithm in a large commercial claims database, etanercept was the most effective and had the lowest biologic cost per effectively treated patient with RA.

Estimating effectiveness and cost of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: application of a validated algorithm to commercial insurance claims.

PURPOSE: The aim of this analysis was to implement a claims-based algorithm to estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient for biologics approved for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included commercially insured adults (aged 18-63 years) with RA in a commercial database, who initiated biologic treatment with abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab between 2007 and 2010. The algorithm defined effectiveness as having all of the following: high adherence, no biologic dose increase, no biologic switching, no new nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, no increased or new oral glucocorticoid use, and no more than 1 glucocorticoid injection. For each biologic, cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total drug and administration costs (from allowed amounts on claims), divided by the number of patients categorized as effectively treated. FINDINGS: Of 15,351 patients, 12,018 (78.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 49.7 (9.6) years. The algorithm categorized treatment as effective in the first year for 30% (1899/6374) of etanercept, 30% (1396/4661) of adalimumab, 20% (560/2765) of infliximab, 27% (361/1338) of abatacept, and 29% (62/213) of golimumab treated patients. The 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined by the algorithm, was nominally lower for subcutaneously injected biologics than for infused biologics. The 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined by the algorithm, was lowest for etanercept ($49,952), followed by golimumab ($50,189), adalimumab ($52,858), abatacept ($71,866), and infliximab ($104,333). IMPLICATIONS: Algorithm-defined effectiveness was similar for biologics other than infliximab. The 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined by the algorithm, was nominally lower for subcutaneously injected biologics than for infused biologics.

Use of a validated algorithm to estimate the annual cost of effective biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using a claims-based algorithm for effectiveness. METHODS: Patients with RA aged 18-63 years in the IMS PharMetrics Plus database were categorized as effectively treated if they met all six criteria: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥80% (subcutaneous) or at least as many infusions as specified in US labeling (intravenous); (2) no biologic dose increase; (3) no biologic switch; (4) no new non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid; and (6) ≤1 glucocorticoid injection. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total cost of the index biologic (drug plus intravenous administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Similar methods were used for the index biologic in the second year and for a second biologic after a switch. RESULTS: Rates that the index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year were 31.0% etanercept (2243/7247), 28.6% adalimumab (1426/4991), 28.6% abatacept (332/1160), 27.2% golimumab (71/261), and 20.2% infliximab (474/2352). Mean biologic cost per effectively treated patient, per the algorithm, was $50,141 etanercept, $53,386 golimumab, $56,942 adalimumab, $73,516 abatacept, and $114,089 infliximab. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient, using this algorithm, was lower for patients who continued the index biologic in the second year and higher after switching. CONCLUSIONS: When a claims-based algorithm was applied to a large commercial claims database, etanercept was categorized as the most effective and had the lowest estimated 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient. This proxy for effectiveness from claims databases was validated against a clinical effectiveness scale, but analyses of the second year or the year after a biologic switch were not included in the validation. Costs of other medications were not included in cost calculations.