Assessment of acute kidney injury related to small-molecule protein kinase inhibitors using the FDA adverse event reporting system.

PURPOSE: Small-molecule protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) have substantially improved clinical outcomes of various diseases. However, some studies suggested these agents might induce acute kidney injury (AKI). This study was designed to comprehensively assess the adverse events of AKI in real-world patients receiving small-molecule PKIs using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: The FAERS data between 2004 and 2019 were extracted to describe the characteristics of AKI cases after the use of small-molecule PKIs approved by the FDA. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for AKI was calculated for each small-molecule PKI agent. A disproportionality signal was defined when the lower limit of 95% CI > 1. RESULTS: Among the 462,020 adverse event reports for small-molecule PKIs, 9970 (2.16%) were identified as AKI cases. The median AKI onset time was 32 (interquartile range 11-124) days after the initiation of small-molecule PKI treatment. A total of 61.38% and 26.04% of AKI cases resulted in hospitalization and death, respectively. Based on RORs, 14 of 52 small-molecule PKIs yielded disproportionality signals for AKI, including six VEGFR inhibitors, three mTOR inhibitors and five small-molecule PKIs with other targets. The agents with the highest AKI RORs were entrectinib (ROR 6.40, 95% CI 2.23, 18.34), sirolimus (ROR 3.76, 95% CI 3.45, 4.09), and cobimetinib (ROR 3.40, 95% CI 2.69, 4.28). CONCLUSION: Analysis of the FAERS data helped identify the small-molecule PKIs that were most frequently reported for AKI. Further investigations are needed to confirm these potential risks.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved. RESULTS: For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non­platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS: Non­platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non­platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

Budget impact analysis of niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer in the US.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of niraparib and olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer from a US third party payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the additional per member per month (PMPM) costs associated with the introduction of niraparib and olaparib, two poly ADP-ribose polymerase ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors recently approved to be used in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients with and without a gBRCA mutation. The model assessed both pharmacy costs and medical costs. Pharmacy costs included adjusted drug costs, coinsurance, and dispensing fees. Medical costs included costs associated with disease monitoring and management of adverse events from the treatment. Epidemiological data from the literature were used to estimate the target population size. The analysis used 1-year time frame, and patients were assumed on treatment until disease progression or death. All costs were computed in 2017 USD. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the model robustness. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members, 206 patients were estimated to be potential candidates for niraparib or olaparib maintenance treatment after applying all epidemiological parameters. At listed 30-day supply WAC prices of $14,750 for niraparib and $13,482 for olaparib, budget impacts of these two drugs were $0.169 PMPM and $0.156 PMPM, respectively, most of which were contributed by pharmacy costs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that assumptions around market share, platinum-sensitive rate after first treatment, and WAC prices affected results the most. LIMITATIONS: In this model, it was assumed that adopting niraparib and olaparib would not affect utilization of existing medications. Also, the estimated clinical parameters from clinical trials could differ from real-world data.

Assessment of Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of Life of 124 Patients Treated With Axitinib as Second-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Experience in Real-World Clinical Practice in Japan.

PURPOSE: To comprehensively analyze the efficacy of axitinib for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 124 consecutive Japanese patients treated with axitinib as second-line systemic therapy for mRCC in a routine clinical setting. RESULTS: In addition to 4 indeterminate patients (3.2%), 0 (0%), 21 (16.9%), 87 (70.2%), and 12 (9.7%) were judged to show complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease, respectively, as the best responses to axitinib. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after initiating treatment with axitinib were 9.3 and 27.0 months, respectively. Multivariate analyses of several parameters identified the following independent predictors of PFS and OS: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) classification and C-reactive protein level for PFS; and MSKCC classification, C-reactive protein level, bone metastasis, and liver metastasis for OS. Common grade 3 or higher adverse events associated with axitinib were hypertension in 41 (33.1%), proteinuria in 14 (11.3%), and hand-foot syndrome in 14 (11.3%). Quality-of-life analysis using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form showed that 2 scores were significantly improved 12 weeks after the administration of axitinib, while there were no significant differences in the remaining 6 scores between surveys administered before and 12 weeks after the treatment with axitinib. CONCLUSION: Favorable disease control could be achieved with acceptable tolerability by introducing axitinib as second-line systemic therapy, resulting in improvement of the prognosis and quality of life of Japanese patients with mRCC.

[Tyrosine kinase inhibiting the VEGF pathway and elderly people: Tolerance, pre-treatment assessment and side effects management]. / Inhibiteurs de tyrosine kinase ciblant l'angiogenèse et sujets âgés : tolérance, évaluation pré-thérapeutique et gestion des effets indésirables.

Angiogenesis inhibition is a major antitumor strategy that has emerged during the last decade. Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting the VEGF receptor, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, regorafenib, pazopanib, and vandetanib reduce tumor growth and metastasis. These agents are approved for the treatment of metastatic diseases in first or second-line. They display a narrow therapeutic index. However, data in the elderly and/or in patients with multiple illnesses remain scarce. This population is classically excluded from clinical trials. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of existing literature regarding antiangiogenic TKI tolerance in the elderly (>70 years old). We also highlight key points of the pre-therapeutic evaluation and summarize the management of common toxicities.

Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Everolimus and axitinib are approved in the US to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure on sunitinib or sorafenib, and one prior systemic therapy (e.g., sunitinib), respectively. Two indirect comparisons performed to evaluate progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus vs axitinib suggested similar efficacy between the two treatments. Therefore, this analysis compares the lifetime costs of these two therapies among sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients from a US payer perspective. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients and estimate the cost of treating patients with everolimus vs axitinib. The following health states were included: stable disease without adverse events (AEs), stable disease with AEs, disease progression (PD), and death. The model included the following resources: active treatments, post-progression treatments, adverse events, physician and nurse visits, scans and tests, and palliative care. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a US claims database analysis. Additionally, a 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs, and the robustness of the model results was tested by conducting sensitivity analyses, including those on dosing scheme and post-progression treatment costs. RESULTS: Base case results demonstrated that patients treated with everolimus cost an average of $12,985 (11%) less over their lifetimes than patients treated with axitinib. The primary difference in costs was related to active treatment, which was largely driven by axitinib's higher dose intensity. RESULTS remained consistent across sensitivity analyses for AE and PD treatment costs, as well as dose intensity and discount rates. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that everolimus likely leads to lower lifetime costs than axitinib for sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients in the US.

Combined use of pharmacokinetic modeling and a steady-state delivery approach allows early assessment of IkappaB kinase-2 (IKK-2) target safety and efficacy.

NF-kappaB activation is clearly linked to the pathogenesis of multiple inflammatory diseases including arthritis. The prominent role of IkappaB kinase-2 (IKK-2) in regulating NF-kappaB signaling in response to proinflammatory stimuli has made IKK-2 a primary anti-inflammation therapeutic target. PHA-408, a potent and selective IKK-2 inhibitor, was identified internally and used for our studies to assess this target. In early in vivo studies, PHA-408 demonstrated efficacy at high doses; however, the correlation between PHA-408 exposure and efficacy could not be established using standard dosing paradigms for the rat disease models. Similar concerns arose from early in vivo safety studies where appropriate NOAEL margins were not achieved. Following a full investigation of the physicochemical properties of the molecule and pharmacokinetic modeling, an oral steady-state delivery strategy was designed to administer PHA-408 to the rat for both efficacy and safety studies. Using this steady-state delivery, a clear dose-response relationship was established between plasma concentrations of PHA-408 and efficacy in the rat arthritis model. The same steady-state delivery approach was used to demonstrate the target safety. In summary, a combination of pharmacokinetic modeling with a steady-state delivery approach allowed us to establish confidence in both the mechanism and safety of the target.