Third-line treatment patterns in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of real-world data in Canada.

There is an increasing demand for real-world data pertaining to the usage of cancer treatments, especially in settings where no standard treatment is specifically recommended. This study presents the first real-world analysis of third-line treatment patterns in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients in Canada. The purpose was to assess evolution of clinical practice and identify unmet needs in post-second-line therapy. Retrospective data from medical records of 66 patients who received third-line treatment before 31st October 2018, and data from 56 patients who received third-line treatment after this date, extracted from the Personalize My Treatment (PMT) cancer patient registry, were analyzed. In the first cohort, the study revealed heterogeneity in the third-line setting, with trastuzumab, lapatinib, and T-DM1 being the main treatment options. Even though data were collected before the wide availability of tucatinib, neratinib and trastuzumab deruxtecan in Canada, the PMT cohort revealed the emergence of new therapeutic combinations and a shift from lapatinib usage to T-DM1 choice was observed. These findings underscore the evolving nature of third-line treatment strategies in Canada, a facet that is intrinsically tied to the availability of new drugs. The absence of a consensus on post-second-line treatment highlights the pressing need for more efficient therapeutic alternatives beyond the currently available options. This study not only offers valuable insights into the present landscape of third-line treatment in Canada but validates the significance and effectiveness of the PMT registry as a tool for generating pan-Canadian real-world evidence in oncology and its capacity to provide information on evolution of therapeutic practices.

Post hoc efficacy and safety analysis of insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed- ratio combination in North American patients compared with the rest of world.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi (titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (iGlar) and lixisenatide) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) living in North America (NA; USA and Canada) compared with the rest of the world (RoW). Research design and methods: Post hoc analysis included patient-level data from 509 sites/centers across two phase III trials: LixiLan-O (NCT02058147; insulin-naive patients; NA, n=371; RoW, n=796) and LixiLan-L (NCT02058160; inadequately controlled patients on basal insulin; NA, n=196; RoW, n=535). Efficacy outcomes were: change from baseline to Week 30 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial glucose (PPG), PPG excursions, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight; proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <42 mmol/mol (<7.0%); proportion of patients achieving composite endpoint: HbA1c <42 mmol/mol (<7.0%), no weight gain or symptomatic hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL)). Safety endpoints included incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Results: Significantly larger reductions (p≤0.003) in HbA1c from baseline to Week 30 were achieved with iGlarLixi, compared with iGlar or lixisenatide, in NA and RoW patients in LixiLan-O (iGlarLixi vs iGlar: -0.31 and -0.29, respectively; iGlarLixi vs lixisenatide: -0.84 and -0.69, respectively) and in LixiLan-L (iGlarLixi vs iGlar: -0.5 and -0.51, respectively). Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was similar between NA and RoW patients. iGlarLixi resulted in significant weight benefits versus iGlar (change from baseline -1.58 and -1.29 kg for NA and RoW patients, respectively; p<0.001). GI adverse events were similar for iGlarLixi and iGlar, but significantly higher for lixisenatide. Conclusions: iGlarLixi improved glycemic parameters versus iGlar or lixisenatide alone in both NA and RoW patients, with beneficial weight effects versus iGlar. iGlarLixi treatment responses, hypoglycemia risk and GI adverse events in NA patients were comparable with patients in the RoW. Trial registry: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02058147 and NCT02058160.

TITRATION: A Randomized Study to Assess 2 Treatment Algorithms with New Insulin Glargine 300 units/mL.

OBJECTIVE: It was uncertain whether an algorithm that involves increasing insulin dosages by 1 unit/day may cause more hypoglycemia with the longer-acting insulin glargine 300 units/mL (GLA-300). The objective of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of 2 titration algorithms, INSIGHT and EDITION, for GLA-300 in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus, mainly in a primary care setting. METHODS: This was a 12-week, open-label, randomized, multicentre pilot study. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 algorithms: they either increased their dosage by 1 unit/day (INSIGHT, n=108) or the dose was adjusted by the investigator at least once weekly, but no more often than every 3 days (EDITION, n=104). The target fasting self-monitored blood glucose was in the range of 4.4 to 5.6 mmol/L. RESULTS: The percentages of participants reaching the primary endpoint of fasting self-monitored blood glucose ≤5.6 mmol/L without nocturnal hypoglycemia were 19.4% (INSIGHT) and 18.3% (EDITION). At week 12, 26.9% (INSIGHT) and 28.8% (EDITION) of participants achieved a glycated hemoglobin value of ≤7%. No differences in the incidence of hypoglycemia of any category were noted between algorithms. Participants in both arms of the study were much more satisfied with their new treatment as assessed by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Most health-care professionals (86%) preferred the INSIGHT over the EDITION algorithm. The frequency of adverse events was similar between algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: A patient-driven titration algorithm of 1 unit/day with GLA-300 is effective and comparable to the previously tested EDITION algorithm and is preferred by health-care professionals.