Retrospective quantitative risk assessment of skin sensitization caused by an antimicrobial agent used in a consumer product: 2,3,5,6-Tetrachloro-4-(methylsulfonyl) pyridine.

BACKGROUND: Serious cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by exposure to 3,5,6-tetrachloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)pyridine (TCMSP; CAS no. 13108-52-6) used as an antimicrobial agent for desk mats have been reported in Japan. OBJECTIVE: A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of TCMSP contained in desk mats was performed retrospectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A local lymph node assay (LLNA): BrdU-ELISA was conducted to determine a reliable EC1.6 value for TCMSP. The acceptable exposure level (AEL) for TCMSP was derived from the EC1.6 value by applying sensitization assessment factors (SAFs). The exposure level was estimated based on the assumption referring to the use conditions of thiabendazole in the same purpose. Then, the estimated exposure level was compared with the AEL to evaluate the skin sensitization risk. RESULTS: The AEL was calculated as 0.00458 µg/cm2 based on the EC1.6 value (0.011%, 2.75 µg/cm2 ) by applying a composite SAF of 600. The estimated TCMSP exposure level from the desk mat was 500 times greater than the AEL, indicating a serious skin sensitization risk. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of skin sensitization potencies of chemicals to be used in consumer products are strongly recommended, and QRAs should be performed at the pre-marketing stage to avoid the skin sensitization risk in consumers.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Real-world assessment and treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma: Findings from the RegiSONIC disease registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding real-world treatment patterns and their effectiveness and safety in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma, including patients not typically represented in clinical trials. The purpose of the current study was to describe how clinicians diagnose and treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in the United States. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational registry study included patients with newly diagnosed, Hedgehog pathway inhibitor-naive locally advanced basal cell carcinoma without basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome (n = 433) treated at 75 US academic and community practices, including dermatology, Mohs surgery, and medical oncology sites. The main outcomes of this study were treatment patterns and associated effectiveness and safety for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in real-world settings. RESULTS: Determination of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma was mainly based on lesion size (79.6% of patients), histopathology (54.3%), extent of involvement (49.0%), and location (46.2%). Within 90 days of determination of locally advanced disease, 115 patients (26.6%) received vismodegib, 251 (58.0%) received surgery/other (non-vismodegib) treatment, and 67 (15.5%) had not yet received treatment (observation). Vismodegib-treated patients had a higher prevalence of high-risk clinical features predictive for locoregional recurrence than those with non-vismodegib treatment or observation. Clinical response rate was 85.1% with vismodegib and 94.9% with non-vismodegib treatment (primarily surgery). The most common adverse events with vismodegib were ageusia/dysgeusia, muscle spasms, alopecia, and weight loss. Rates of cutaneous squamous cell cancers were comparable between vismodegib and non-vismodegib treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective observational study offers insight on real-world practice, treatment selection, and outcomes for a nationally representative sample of US patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma. For patients with lesions that were not amenable to surgery, vismodegib treatment was associated with effectiveness and safety that was consistent with that observed in clinical trials.

Vismodegib (ERIVEDGE) pregnancy prevention programme: assessment of risk awareness.

INTRODUCTION: Vismodegib (Erivedge; Roche), a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HPI), is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and locally advanced BCC inappropriate for surgery or radiotherapy. Due to the known risk of HPI teratogenicity, the Erivedge Pregnancy Prevention Program (PPP) was introduced at approval (2013) as part of the EU Risk Management Plan. METHODS: Structured, quantitative Web-based surveys were conducted in 2015 (Wave 1), 2016 (Wave 2), and 2017/2018 (Wave 3) among prescribing oncologists and dermato-oncologists in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, and the United Kingdom to assess the effectiveness of the Erivedge PPP. RESULTS: Overall, 95%, 87%, and 91% of respondents in Waves 3 (N = 181), 2 (N = 214), and 1 (N = 207), respectively, were vismodegib prescribers. The surveys consistently showed a high awareness about the risk of teratogenicity associated with vismodegib (98%, Wave 3; 95%, Wave 2) and that a high proportion of prescribing physicians took appropriate precautions to minimize this risk (95%, Wave 3; 92%, Wave 2; 88%, Wave 1). Physicians were also highly aware of the Erivedge PPP (70%, Wave 3; 67%, Wave 2; 71%, Wave 1). CONCLUSION: Survey data suggest that the risk of teratogenicity with vismodegib has been effectively communicated to the prescribing community.

Assessment of various efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma receiving sonidegib: results from a preplanned sensitivity analysis.

BACKGROUND: The BOLT study for sonidegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) approved for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy, used modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for laBCC tumor evaluation. The ERIVANCE study for vismodegib, another HHI, used a composite RECIST endpoint of ≥30% reduction in externally visible tumor or radiographic dimension, or complete ulceration resolution. This preplanned sensitivity BOLT analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with laBCC who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily. METHODS: This phase 2, double-blind study randomized patients 1:2 to sonidegib 200:800 mg daily, respectively. Key endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). laBCC tumors were assessed by both mRECIST and ERIVANCE-like criteria. Per mRECIST, an overall response of CR was based on negative histology; photographic assessment of CR, PR (scar/fibrosis only), SD (scar/fibrosis only), or not available (NA); and a magnetic resonance imaging response of CR or NA. An overall response of CR was primarily based on negative histology using ERIVANCE-like criteria. RESULTS: Per mRECIST criteria, ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) by central and investigator review for patients with laBCC (n = 66) was 56.1% (43.3-68.3%) and 71.2% (58.7-81.7%), respectively. CR per central review was achieved in 3 (4.5%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 34 (51.5%), 23 (34.8%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. Median (95% CI) DOR was 26.1 months (not estimable [NE]). Using ERIVANCE-like criteria, efficacy outcomes per central and investigator review were higher, with an ORR (95% CI) of 60.6% (47.8-72.4%) and 74.2% (62.0-84.2%), respectively. CR per central review was reached in 14 (21.2%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 26 (39.4%), 20 (30.3%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. DOR was unchanged with a median (95% CI) of 26.1 months (NE). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, applying ERIVANCE-like criteria to patients with laBCC receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily yielded higher response rates vs mRECIST criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BOLT registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01327053 ) on March 30, 2011.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China. METHODS: A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

Jurisdictional Guidance on DOAC Use-Will It Affect Practice? A Comparison of European, American, and Canadian Product Monographs.

Objective: To identify clinically relevant areas of concordance and discordance between product monographs for 4 direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) approved by regulatory authorities in Europe, the United States, and Canada. Data Sources: For each DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban), manufacturer product monographs were retrieved from the European Medicines Database, US Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada Drug Product Database. Data Extraction: Monographs for each DOAC were independently reviewed by 2 investigators to identify areas of concordance and discordance. Discordance existed if it was deemed that a potentially clinically relevant difference existed. A heat map summarizing the data was created to identify areas of complete concordance, partial concordance (concordance between 2 of 3 monographs), and complete discordance. Data Synthesis: The areas of concordance were indications for use, use in extremes of weight, and switching to/from the DOAC. Areas of discordance included the following: differing recommendations for use/dosing with renal dysfunction; contraindication or use with caution with drug interactions, pregnancy, and hepatic/renal dysfunction; and timing of DOAC with spinal/epidural anesthesia after a procedure or traumatic puncture. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Concordance was most evident for uncomplicated patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism, whereas discordance emerged for those having characteristics/factors wherein clinicians may seek clarification within product monographs (eg, impaired renal/hepatic function, drug interactions). As such, clinicians must be familiar with product information within their country of practice. Conclusion: Variability between jurisdictions was evident, and variability of DOAC use is likely to increase with expanding worldwide uptake.

Analysis of Longitudinal-Ordered Categorical Data for Muscle Spasm Adverse Event of Vismodegib: Comparison Between Different Pharmacometric Models.

Longitudinal-ordered categorical data, common in clinical trials, can be effectively analyzed with nonlinear mixed effect models. In this article, we systematically evaluated the performance of three different models in longitudinal muscle spasm adverse event (AE) data obtained from a clinical trial for vismodegib: a proportional odds (PO) model, a discrete-time Markov model, and a continuous-time Markov model. All models developed based on weekly spaced data can reasonably capture the proportion of AE grade over time; however, the PO model overpredicted the transition frequency between grades and the cumulative probability of AEs. The influence of data frequency (daily, weekly, or unevenly spaced) was also investigated. The PO model performance reduced with increased data frequency, and the discrete-time Markov model failed to describe unevenly spaced data, but the continuous-time Markov model performed consistently well. Clinical trial simulations were conducted to illustrate the muscle spasm resolution time profile during the 8-week dose interruption period after 12 weeks of continuous treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progresses after treatment with sorafenib. Cabozantinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, recently showed improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in sorafenib-pretreated patients with advanced HCC in the CELESTIAL trial. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC from a US healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cost and utility data were extracted from the CELESTIAL trial and used to determine the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by using cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care in sorafenib-pretreated HCC. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis using data from the CELESTIAL trial, the incremental QALY and ICER were 0.067 and $1,040,675 for cabozantinib compared with placebo and best supportive care. OS reported in the CELESTIAL trial (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) had the strongest association with the ICER. In one-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which cabozantinib was cost-effective. In a cost-threshold analysis, cabozantinib would have to be priced at least $50 per pill to be cost-effective considering a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Although the CELESTIAL trial demonstrated that cabozantinib improves OS compared with placebo in patients with HCC that progresses after treatment with sorafenib, our analysis shows that cabozantinib is not a cost-effective therapy in this scenario. CONCLUSIONS: At current costs, cabozantinib is not cost-effective for second-line therapy of HCC in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness and safety of palbociclib and everolimus for treating advanced and recurrent breast cancer.

This retrospective study compares the economic superiority of palbociclib versus everolimus for advanced and recurrent breast cancer. Furthermore, we investigated the safety and treatment continuity of palbociclib and everolimus regimens. Expected costs were calculated based on data from patients with advanced and recurrent breast cancer who were treated with palbociclib and everolimus. The progression-free survival (PFS) from the PALOMA-3 clinical trial and BOLERO-2 clinical trial was used to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio of each chemotherapy agent was calculated by dividing the expected cost by the progression-free survival (PFS). The cost-effectiveness ratio per month was JPY 391,551.3/PFS for palbociclib and JPY 488,690.5/PFS for everolimus (p=0.627). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per month of everolimus to palbociclib was JPY 100,133.7/PFS. For patients receiving everolimus, adverse drug reactions included stomatitis (77.3%), rash (59.1%) and leukopenia (59.1%). For patients receiving palbociclib, neutropenia (69.2%), leukopenia (69.2%) and anemia (30.8%) occurred. In terms of discontinuation owing to adverse events (AEs), pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, edema, fatigue, and neutropenia were experienced in the everolimus group. The cost-effectiveness of everolimus and palbociclib are equivalent, but since the prevalence of AEs is high in patients receiving everolimus, its AE management is important.

Edoxaban therapy increases treatment satisfaction and reduces utilization of healthcare resources: an analysis from the EdoxabaN vs. warfarin in subjectS UndeRgoing cardiovErsion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF) study.

Aims: The EdoxabaN vs. warfarin in subjectS UndeRgoing cardiovErsion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF) (NCT02072434) study was a multicentre prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint evaluation (PROBE) trial comparing edoxaban with enoxaparin/warfarin followed by warfarin alone in 2199 non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients undergoing electrical cardioversion and showed comparable rates of bleeding and thromboembolism between treatments. This prespecified ancillary analysis investigated the impact of edoxaban therapy on treatment satisfaction and utilization of healthcare services. Methods and results: The Perception of Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire (PACT-Q2) was completed by study patients on Day 28 post-cardioversion. Higher scores represent greater satisfaction. Healthcare resource utilizations were collected from randomization to Day 28 post-cardioversion. Data from patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were analysed. Patients treated with edoxaban were more satisfied than enoxaparin/warfarin in both PACT-Q treatment satisfaction and convenience scores (P < 0.001 for both). Differences in treatment satisfaction scores were greater in patients who underwent non-transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE)-guided cardioversion than in patients who underwent TOE-guided cardioversion. Edoxaban was associated with fewer clinic visits (4.75 visits vs. 7.60 visits; P < 0.001) and fewer hospital days (3.43 days vs. 5.41 days; P < 0.05). Rates of hospitalizations and emergency room visits were not significantly different. Overall, edoxaban therapy was estimated to reduce healthcare costs by €107.73, €437.92, €336.75, and $246.32 per patient in German, Spanish, Italian, and US settings, respectively. Conclusions: The convenience of edoxaban therapy over warfarin in patients undergoing cardioversion may provide greater treatment satisfaction and cost savings to the healthcare system.

Comparing the Cost Effectiveness of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants with Well-Managed Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Patients at High Risk of Bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared the cost effectiveness of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin using results from clinical trials evaluating NOACs. However, the time in therapeutic range (TTR) of warfarin groups ranged across clinical trials, and all were below the therapeutic goal of 70%. We compared the cost effectiveness of edoxaban 60 mg, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg, and well-managed warfarin with a TTR of 70% in preventing stroke among patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of bleeding. METHODS: For the six treatments, we used a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in $US and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We simulated relative risk ratios of clinical events with each NOAC versus warfarin with a TTR of 70% using published regression models that predict how the incidence of thrombotic or hemorrhagic events changes for each unit change in TTR. We re-ran our analysis for two other estimates of TTR: 65 and 75%. RESULTS: Treatment with edoxaban 60 mg cost $US127,520/QALY gained compared with warfarin with a TTR of 70% and cost $US41,860/QALY gained compared with warfarin with a TTR of 65%. However, warfarin with a TTR of 75% was more effective and less expensive than all NOACs. For three levels of TTR, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were dominated strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative cost effectiveness of edoxaban and warfarin is highly sensitive to TTR. At the $US100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, our results suggest that warfarin is the most cost-effective treatment for patients who can achieve a TTR of 70%.

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer's perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib's efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016 US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness. RESULTS: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used. CONCLUSIONS: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.

Assessment of quality of life using Skindex-16 in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma treated with vismodegib in the STEVIE study.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are limited in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. To report HRQoL outcomes based on STEVIE (NCT01367665), a phase 2 study of vismodegib safety in patients with metastatic BCC or locally advanced BCC that is unsuitable for surgery or radiotherapy. Skindex-16 and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) questionnaires were completed at baseline and at three subsequent visits. Clinically meaningful improvement was defined as a ≥10-point decrease from baseline (Skindex-16) or improvement of at least 3 points from baseline (MDASI). HRQoL-evaluable patients with locally advanced BCC (n = 730) had ≥10-point improvements in Skindex-16 emotion domain scores at all time points. Changes in symptom and function scores in these patients or in any domain scores at any time point in patients with metastatic BCC (n = 10) were not clinically meaningful. Of 10 patients with symptomatic metastatic BCC at baseline, six had ≥3-point improvements in MDASI symptom severity. Skindex-16 and MDASI showed improvement in HRQoL in vismodegib-treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC or BCC.

Assessment of Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacological Effect of Orally Administered CORT125134: An Adaptive, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 1 Clinical Study.

CORT125134 is an orally active, high-affinity, selective antagonist of the glucocorticoid receptor that is being developed for indications that may benefit from the modulation of cortisol activity. This first-in-human study was conducted to evaluate the dose-related safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects of CORT125134 and its active metabolite CORT125201. Eighty-one healthy male or female subjects received a single dose of 5 to 500 mg CORT125134 or matching placebo across 9 cohorts; 1 cohort received 150 mg CORT125134 after a high-fat breakfast; and 46 subjects received 50 to 500 mg CORT125134 or matching placebo once daily for up to 14 days across 4 cohorts. CORT125134 was well tolerated at doses up to 250 mg per day for 14 days. CORT125134 was absorbed rapidly and eliminated with a mean half-life ranging from 11 to 19 hours. Steady state was achieved by day 7. Exposure increased in a greater than proportional manner, particularly at lower doses. Exposure to CORT125201 at steady state was less than 5% that of parent CORT125134. Evidence for the desired pharmacological effect (glucocorticoid receptor antagonism) was demonstrated by the ability of CORT125134 to prevent several effects of the glucocorticoid receptor agonist prednisone.

Palbociclib in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: A cost-utility analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The addition of palbociclib to letrozole improves progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assesses the cost-utility of palbociclib from the Canadian healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed and parameterised with data from the PALOMA 1 and 2 trials and other sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM) gained for palbociclib was calculated. A time horizon of 15 years was used in the base case with costs and effectiveness discounted at 5% annually. Time-to- progression and time-to-death were derived from a Weibull and exponential distribution. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to letrozole, the addition of palbociclib provided an additional 14.7 QALM at an incremental cost of $161,508. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10,999/QALM gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $4167/QALM, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 0%. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $11,000/QALM gained, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 50%. CONCLUSION: The addition of palbociclib to letrozole is unlikely to be cost-effective for the treatment of ABC from a Canadian healthcare perspective with its current price. While ABC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from palbociclib, considerations should be given to increase the WTP threshold and reduce the drug pricing, to render this strategy more affordable.

Risk analysis of new oral anticoagulants for gastrointestinal bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy using new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has been generally shown to have a favorable risk-benefit profile. Since there has been dispute about the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), we sought to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian inference to analyze the risks of GIB and ICH in AF patients taking NOACs. METHODS: We analyzed data from 20 randomized controlled trials of 91 671 AF patients receiving anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, or placebo. Bayesian network meta-analysis of two different evidence networks was performed using a binomial likelihood model, based on a network in which different agents (and doses) were treated as separate nodes. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were modeled using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. RESULTS: Indirect comparisons with the Bayesian model confirmed that aspirin+clopidogrel significantly increased the risk of GIB in AF patients compared to the placebo (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01-0.92). Warfarin was identified as greatly increasing the risk of ICH compared to edoxaban 30 mg (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.22-7.24) and dabigatran 110 mg (OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.10-8.45). We further ranked the NOACs for the lowest risk of GIB (apixaban 5 mg) and ICH (apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and edoxaban 30 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian network meta-analysis of treatment of non-valvular AF patients with anticoagulants suggested that NOACs do not increase risks of GIB and/or ICH, compared to each other.