Sacral neuromodulation in nursing home residents: Predictors of success and complications in a national cohort of older adults.

AIMS: There is limited evidence to support the efficacy of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for older adults with overactive bladder (OAB). This study aims to report outcomes following SNM among nursing home (NH) residents, a vulnerable population with high rates of frailty and comorbidity. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of long-stay NH residents who underwent a trial of percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) or Stage 1 permanent lead placement (Stage 1) between 2014 and 2016. Residents were identified using the Minimum Data Set linked to Medicare claims. The primary outcome of this study was successful progression from trial to implant. Rates of 1-year device explant/revisions were also investigated. RESULTS: Trial of SNM was observed in 1089 residents (mean age: 77.9 years). PNE was performed in 66.9% of residents and 33.2% underwent Stage 1. Of Stage 1 procedures, 23.8% were performed with simultaneous device implant (single-stage). Overall, 53.1% of PNEs and 72.4% of Stage 1 progressed to device implant, which was associated with Stage 1 procedure versus PNE (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 1.34; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.21-1.49) and female versus male sex (aRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.09-1.46). One-year explant/revision was observed in 9.3% of residents (6.3% for PNE, 10.5% for Stage 1, 20.3% single-stage). Single stage procedure versus PNE was significantly associated with device explant/revision (aRR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.9-6.2). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of NH residents, outcomes following SNM were similar to previous reports of younger healthier cohorts. Surgeons managing older patients with OAB should use caution when selecting patients for single stage SNM procedures.

Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are various recommendations for third-line treatment in mCRC, however, there is no consensus on who is more suitable for particular strategy. Chemotherapy re-use in third-line setting is a common option in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of third-line chemotherapy re-use by the comparison with that of anti-angiogenic monotherapy, and further find the population more suitable for third-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Using electronic medical records of patients with mCRC, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting as control group were retrospectively collected. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the χ² test or the Fisher's exact test. ROC curve and surv_cutpoint function of 'survminer' package in R software were used to calculate the cut-off value. Survival curves were plotted with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the potential risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting were retrospectively collected. Chemotherapy rechallenge was recorded in 93 patients (93/143, 65.0%), and the remaining patients chose new chemotherapeutic drugs that had not been previously used, including irinotecan-based (22/50), oxaliplatin-based (9/50), raltitrexed (9/50), gemcitabine (5/50) and other agents (5/50). The ORR and DCR of third-line chemotherapy reached 8.8%, 61.3%, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: ORR 2.6%, DCR 47.4%). The mPFS and mOS of patients receiving chemotherapy were 4.9 and 12.0 m, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: mPFS 2.7 m, mOS 5.2 m). Subgroup analyses found that patients with RAS/RAF mutation, longer PFS (greater than 10.6 m) in front-line treatment or larger tumor burden had better prognosis with third-line chemotherapy rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Third-line chemotherapy re-use was effective in mCRC. Those with more aggressive characteristics (RAS/RAF mutant, larger tumor burden) or better efficacy of previous chemotherapy (longer PFS) were more appropriate for third-line chemotherapy, rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

Who Progresses to Third-Line Therapies for Overactive Bladder? Trends From the AQUA Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Overactive bladder (OAB) patients who do not achieve satisfactory results with second-line OAB medications should be offered third-line therapies (percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, sacral neuromodulation, onabotulinumtoxinA bladder injection [BTX-A]). We aimed to determine which clinical factors affect progression from second- to third-line OAB therapy. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2020, the AUA Quality Registry was queried for adult patients with idiopathic OAB. For the primary outcome, patient and provider factors associated with increased odds of progression from second- to third-line therapy were assessed. Secondary outcomes included median time for progression to third-line therapy and third-line therapy utilization across subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 641,122 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in analysis. Of these, only 7487 (1.2%) received third-line therapy after receiving second-line therapy. On multivariate analysis, patients aged 65 to 79, women, White race, history of dual anticholinergic and ß3 agonist therapy, metropolitan area, government insurance, and single specialty practice had the greatest odds of progressing to third-line therapy. Black and Asian race, male gender, and rural setting had lower odds of progressing to third-line therapy. BTX-A was the most common therapy overall (40% BTX-A, 32% sacral neuromodulation, 28% percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation). The median time of progression from second- to third-line therapy was 15.4 months (IQR 5.9, 32.4). Patients < 50 years old and women progressed fastest to third-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Very few patients received third-line therapies, and the time to progression from second- to third-line therapies is > 1 year. The study findings highlight a potential need to improve third-line therapy implementation.

Fluid intake behavior in women with refractory overactive bladder undergoing third line therapy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Fluid intake has been shown to be related to urinary symptoms, but no studies to date have investigated the effect of fluid intake on urinary symptoms in women with refractory overactive bladder (OAB). As this group of women are considered to have a possible unique pathophysiologic mechanism of OAB, we investigated the relationship between fluid intake, fluid intake behavior, and urinary symptoms in women with refractory OAB. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study of women with refractory OAB was conducted by assessing the relationship between fluid intake and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in women undergoing third line OAB therapies. Fluid intake and behavior were measured by the questionnaire based voiding diary and urinary symptoms were measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS). The relationship between fluid intake and symptom severity was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation and χ2  tests. RESULTS: Of the 126 individuals undergoing third line therapy for OAB, 60 (48%) underwent intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection (BTX) injection, 42 (33%) peripheral tibial nerve stimulation, and 24 (19%) sacral neuromodulation. The mean total daily fluid intake was 2567.0 ± SD 1292.4 mL and did not differ significantly across treatment groups. Total fluid intake was weakly correlated with worse filling-type LUTS (r = 0.241, p = 0.007), and there was no relationship between LUTS and caffeinated fluid intake. Half (52%) of the subjects reported current fluid restricting behavior to control urinary symptoms, but this behavior was not correlated with LUTS severity (all p > 0.05). Patients that currently use tobacco have greater LUTS (current = 25.8 ± SD 9.5, former = 14.8 ± SD 6.1, never = 15.0 ± SD 6.1; p < 0.001). BMI was also positively correlated with worse incontinence symptoms (r = 0.351, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Fluid intake along with other lifestyle factors, including tobacco use and weight, are minimally related to the symptomatology seen in women with refractory OAB. Further studies are needed to assess if behaviors change during treatment with third line therapies, and if these behavioral changes may affect treatment response.

Efficacy and safety of fruquintinib dose-escalation strategy for elderly patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A single-arm, multicenter, phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Fruquintinib has demonstrated significant improvement in overall survival (OS) among previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, the utilization of fruquintinib has been constrained by various toxicities, such as hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and hypertension, particularly in elderly patients with reduced tolerance to the standard dosage. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib dose-escalation strategy for elderly refractory mCRC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, phase II trial included patients aged 65 years or over with mCRC who had progressed after two or more lines of chemotherapy. Fruquintinib was administered for 21 consecutive days of a 28-day treatment cycle. The starting dose of fruquintinib was 3 mg/day and escalated to 4 mg/day in Week 2 and 5 mg/day in Week 3 if no significant drug-related toxicity was observed. The highest tolerated dose from Cycle 1 would be administered in Cycle 2 and all subsequent cycles. Before commencing treatment, all enrolled patients underwent a G8 questionnaire and comprehensive geriatric assessments. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were enrolled and all started fruquintinib at 3 mg/day. Fifteen patients (51.7%) were subsequently escalated to 4 mg/day and 4 (13.8%) to 5 mg/day. Only four (13.8%) patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events (AEs). The median PFS was 3.8 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.9), and the median OS was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.5-8.7). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed in all 29 patients (100%). The most frequently occurring (>10%) TRAEs greater than Grade 3 were HFSR (20.7%), hypertension (20.7%), and diarrhea (10.3%). CONCLUSION: Our study indicated that a dose of 4 mg/day was well tolerated by most elderly patients, suggesting that fruquintinib dose-escalation strategy during the first cycle could serve as a viable alternative to the standard 5 mg/day dosing.

Retrospective Correlation between First Drug Treatment Duration and Survival Outcomes in Sequential Treatment with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Subgroup Analysis.

Background: Patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) rarely receive third-line or further treatment. In this context, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two important novel therapeutic choices with statistically significant increases in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control, with different toxicity profiles. This study is a subgroup analysis of our larger retrospective study, already published, whose objective was to assess the outcomes of patients when R and T were given sequentially. Patients and Methods: The study involved thirteen Italian cancer centers on a 10-year retrospective observation (2012-2022). In this subgroup analysis, we focused our attention on the correlation between the first drug treatment duration (<3 months, 3 to <6 months and ≥6 months) and survival outcomes in patients who had received the sequence regorafenib-to-trifluridine/tipiracil, or vice versa. Results: The initial study included 866 patients with mCRC who received sequential T/R, or R/T, or T or R alone. This analysis is focused on evaluating the impact of the duration of the first treatment in the sequence on clinical outcomes (OS, PFS) and includes 146 and 116 patients of the T/R and R/T sequences, respectively. Based on the duration of the first drug treatment, subgroups for the T/R sequence included 27 patients (18.4%) who received T for <3 months, 86 (58.9%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 33 (22.6%) treated for ≥6 months; in the reverse sequence (R as the first drug), subgroups included 18 patients (15.5%) who received their first treatment for <3 months, 62 (53.4%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 35 (31.0%) treated for ≥6 months. In patients who received their first drug treatment for a period of 3 to <6 months, the R/T sequence had a significantly longer median OS (13.7 vs. 10.8 months, p = 0.0069) and a longer median PFS (10.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.0003) than the T/R group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups with first drug treatment durations of <3 months and ≥6 months. Conclusions: Our analysis seems to suggest that the administration of R for a period of 3 to <6 months before that of T can prolong both OS and PFS, as compared to the opposite sequence.

Efficacy and safety of abemaciclib alone and with PI3K/mTOR inhibitor LY3023414 or galunisertib versus chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) are characterized by frequent cell cycle pathways aberrations. This study evaluated safety and efficacy of abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, as monotherapy or in combination with PI3K/mTOR dual inhibitor LY3023414 or TGFß inhibitor galunisertib versus standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in patients with pretreated metastatic PDAC. METHODS: This Phase 2 open-label study enrolled patients with metastatic PDAC who progressed after 1-2 prior therapies. Patients were enrolled in a safety lead-in (abemaciclib plus galunisertib) followed by a 2-stage randomized design. Stage 1 randomization was planned 1:1:1:1 for abemaciclib, abemaciclib plus LY3023414, abemaciclib plus galunisertib, or SOC gemcitabine or capecitabine. Advancing to Stage 2 required a disease control rate (DCR) difference ≥0 in abemaciclib-containing arms versus SOC. Primary objectives for Stages 1 and 2 were DCR and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. Secondary objectives included response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients were enrolled. Abemaciclib plus galunisertib did not advance to Stage 1 for reasons unrelated to safety or efficacy. Stage 1 DCR was 15.2% with abemaciclib monotherapy, 12.1% with abemaciclib plus LY3023414, and 36.4% with SOC. Median PFS was 1.7 months (95% CI: 1.4-1.8), 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.9), and 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.1-5.7), respectively. No arms advanced to Stage 2. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: In patients with pretreated metastatic PDAC, abemaciclib-based therapy did not improve DCRs or PFS compared with SOC chemotherapy. No treatment arms advanced to Stage 2. Abemaciclib remains investigational in patients with PDAC.

Multiple Real-World Data Sources in a Bayesian Framework to Inform Long-Term Survival Estimates of Mosunetuzumab in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) receiving third-line or later (3L +) therapy have long survival, which can make estimating long-term overall survival (OS) from trial data challenging. The objective of this study was to estimate long-term OS for mosunetuzumab from the GO29781 trial (NCT02500407) using multiple real-world databases (RWDs) in a Bayesian framework. METHODS: Seven RWD sources for patients with FL receiving 3L + therapy and the expansion cohort in the GO29781 trial for mosunetuzumab were used. Hazard trends from the RWD sources were analyzed, and disease-wide pointwise OS and its corresponding uncertainty were estimated using Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis from the RWD sources. Pointwise OS obtained was used as an informative prior in Bayesian survival extrapolations to data from patients receiving mosunetuzumab. Results after adjusting for background mortality were compared to equivalent frequentist extrapolations using trial data only. RESULTS: Hazard patterns from RWD sources supported a constant or linearly decreasing hazard. Mean pointwise OS for patients with FL receiving 3L + therapy was estimated at 0.52 (95% credible interval, 0.29-0.85) at 8 years. Bayesian extrapolations for mosunetuzumab produced median survival estimates of 11.6 (6.7-20.7) years to 17.0 (6.4-22.7) years depending on the distribution used, reducing uncertainty by 20% to 46% relative to the frequentist estimation. CONCLUSION: Multiple RWD sources can be synthesized to augment the credibility of data with short follow-up, long patient survival, and few events to effectively estimate long-term survival and reduce estimated uncertainty. This method can be applied to other indications with similar characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: NCT02500407, July 16, 2015.

Third-line treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective real-world study.

Background: There are multiple recommendations on the third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, no consensus has been reached. Objectives: This study aimed to explore the patient demographics and the real-world third-line treatment landscape of mCRC. Design: A retrospective real-world cohort study. Methods: Electronic medical records of mCRC patients from Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital between 2013 and 2020 were collected. Upon descriptive, comparative, and survival analyses, a retrospective study was conducted to describe demographics and clinical outcomes of mCRC patients receiving third-line treatment. Results: Among 218 mCRC patients receiving third-line therapy, 65.5% received chemotherapy combined with or without targeted drugs, followed by anti-angiogenic monotherapy (18.4%), anti-epidermal growth factor receptor drugs (6.9%) and immunotherapy (6.4%). The overall response rate and disease control rate reached 10.2% and 59.2%, respectively; and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 4.0 m and 10.7 m, respectively. After Cox multivariate analysis, we found that therapeutic regime was an independent prognostic factor. Compared to patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy, those receiving chemotherapy combined with or without targeted drugs exhibited better prognosis. For patients whose PFS were longer in the front-line treatment, the PFS of third-line therapy was also relatively longer (p = 0.023). Multiple types of therapies (>3, p = 0.002) or multiple drugs (>5, p = 0.024) in the whole-course management of mCRC are indicators of longer survival. Conclusion: Chemotherapy combined with or without targeted therapy remained dominated third-line choice and showed favorable efficacy compared with anti-angiogenic monotherapy. With the application of more types and quantities of effective drugs, patients would achieve better survival.

Treatment Settings and Outcomes with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil at Third-Line Treatment and beyond in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2012-2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes. RESULTS: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

Long-term outcomes of third-line therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia: A real-life experience.

Introduction: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy has greatly improved the prognosis of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), improving the survival expectancy of patients with chronic phase (CP) CML to that of the general population. However, despite these advances, nearly 50% of patients with CP CML experience failure to respond to frontline therapy, and most fail to respond to the subsequent second-line TKI. Treatment guidelines for patients failing second-line therapy are lacking. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of TKIs as third-line therapy in a "real-world" clinical practice setting and identify factors favorably influencing the long-term outcomes of therapy. Methods: We have retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 100 patients with CP CML. Results: The median age of the patients was 51 (range, 21-88) years, and 36% of the patients were men. The median duration of the third-line TKI therapy was 22 (range, 1- 147) months. Overall, the rate of achieving complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) was 35%. Among the four patient groups with different levels of responses at baseline, the best results were achieved in the groups with any CyR at the baseline of third-line therapy. Thus, СCyR was reached in all 15 and 8/ 16 (50%) patients with partial cytogenetic response (PCyR) or minimal or minor CyR (mmCyR), respectively, whereas CCyR was detected only in 12/69 (17%) patients without any CyR at baseline (p < 0.001). Univariate regression analysis revealed that the factors negatively associated with CCyR achievement in thirdline TKI therapy were the absence of any CyR on first- or second-line TKI therapy (p < 0.001), absence of CHR prior to third-line TKI (p = 0.003), and absence of any CyR prior to third-line TKI (p < 0.001). During the median observation time from treatment initiation to the last visit [56 (4-180) months], 27% of cases progressed into accelerated phase or blast phase CML, and 32% of patients died. Discussion: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly higher in patients with CCyR on third-line than in the group without CCyR on third-line therapy. At the last visit, third-line TKI therapy was ongoing in 18% of patients, with a median time of treatment exposure of 58 (range, 6-140) months; 83% of these patients had stable and durable CCyR, suggesting that patients without CHR at baseline and without CCyR at least by 12 months on third-line TKI should be candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, third-generation TKIs, or experimental therapies.

Efficacy of third-line anti-EGFR-based treatment versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil according to primary tumor site in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Background: Right- (R) and left-sided (L) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) exhibit different clinical and molecular features. Several retrospective analyses showed that survival benefit of anti-EGFR-based therapy is limited to RAS/BRAF wt L-sided mCRC patients. Few data are available about third-line anti-EGFR efficacy according to primary tumor site. Methods: RAS/BRAF wt patients mCRC treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (R/T) were retrospectively collected. The objective of the analysis was to compare treatment efficacy according to tumor site. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity. Results: A total of 76 RAS/BRAF wt mCRC patients, treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy or R/T, were enrolled. Of those, 19 (25%) patients had a R-sided tumor (9 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 10 patients R/T) and 57 (75%) patients had a L-sided tumor (30 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 27 patients R/T). A significant PFS [7.2 vs 3.6 months, HR 0.43 (95% CI 0.2-0.76), p= 0.004] and OS benefit [14.9 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.98), p= 0.045] in favor of anti-EGFR therapy vs R/T was observed in the L-sided tumor group. No difference in PFS and OS was observed in the R-sided tumor group. A significant interaction according to primary tumor site and third-line regimen was observed for PFS (p= 0.05). RR was significantly higher in L-sided patients treated with anti-EGFR vs R/T (43% vs. 0%; p <0.0001), no difference was observed in R-sided patients. At the multivariate analysis, third-line regimen was independently associated with PFS in L-sided patients. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated a different benefit from third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy according to primary tumor site, confirming the role of L-sided tumor in predicting benefit from third-line anti-EGFR vs R/T. At the same time, no difference was observed in R-sided tumor.

Third-line and rescue therapy for refractory Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to increasing resistance rates of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against H. pylori infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory H. pylori infection. AIM: To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory H. pylori infection. METHODS: A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory H. pylori infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of H. pylori infection rescue therapies were included. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera® (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis. CONCLUSION: We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.

Efficacy of Combination of Camrelizumab with Anlotinib as Third-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer / 肿瘤防治研究

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and related adverse reactions of the combination of camrelizumab with anlotinib as the third-line therapy on advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 84 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer after second-line treatment. According to different treatment methods, 44 patients who received camrelizumab combined with anlotinib were included in the observation group, and 40 patients who received anlotinib alone were included in the control group. The PFS, ORR, DCR and incidence of adverse reactions were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results The median PFS of the observation group was longer than that of the control group (7.0 vs. 5.6 months, P=0.001). No statistically significant difference was observed in ORR, DCR, the incidence of adverse reactions or the incidence of adverse reactions above grade 3 between two groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusion The clinical efficacy of camrelizumab combined with anlotinib as third-line therapy on advanced non-small cell lung cancer is better than anlotinib alone, and the safety is good.

Investigation of Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Third-Line Therapy against Helicobacter pylori Infection / 医薬品情報学

Objective: The success rate of third-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection has been reported to depend on the use of antibacterial agents, potassium-competitive acid blockers, and proton pump inhibitors. However, there is insufficient information on the success rate of H. pylori treatment due to the differences in the clinically used drugs. Here, the factors influencing the success rate of third-line treatment for H. pylori infection was investigated.Methods: Patients aged 20 years or older, who had received third-line treatment for H. pylori infection from January 2013 to December 2021 at the Kameda Medical Center were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with unknown treatment results and discontinuation of treatment. The primary endpoint was treatment success rate, based on the differences in the treatment regimen and drug choice, which was retroactively investigated from medical records. Confounding factors were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression analysis.Results: Treatment regimens containing sitafloxacin resulted in higher treatment success rates (p<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the administration of sitafloxacin was the only statistically significant factor influencing treatment success. However, vonoprazan also tended to influence treatment success.Conclusion: Treatment with sitafloxacin and vonoprazan increases the success rate of third-line treatment against H. pylori infection.

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing antiretroviral therapy for treatment-experienced HIV adult patients using an optimized background therapy approach: is there evidence enough for a standardized third-line strategy?

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the need for evidence on third-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults living with HIV/AIDS, given that some controversy remains as to the best combinations of ART for experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to (i) assess the efficacy of third-line therapy for adults with HIV/AIDS based on randomized controlled trials (RCT) that adopted the "new antiretroviral (ARV) + optimized background therapy (OBT)" approach and (ii) address the key issues identified in WHO's guidelines on the use of third-line therapy. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs assessing third-line ARV therapy that used an OBT approach between 1966 and 2015. Data was extracted using an Excel-structured datasheet based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was the proportion of patients reaching undetectable HIV RNA levels (< 50 copies/mL) at 48 weeks of follow-up. Included studies were evaluated using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment tool. Summarized evidence was rated according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eighteen trials assessing 9 new ARV + OBT combinations defined as third-line HIV therapy provided the efficacy data: 7 phase IIb trials and 11 phase III trials. Four of the 18 trials provided extension data, thus resulting in 14 trials providing 48-week efficacy data. In the meta-analysis, considering the outcome regarding the proportion of patients with a viral load below 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks, 9 out of 14 trials demonstrated the superiority of the new combination being studied (risk difference = 0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). The same analysis stratified by the number of fully active ARVs demonstrated a risk difference of 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.46), 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.38) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.10-0.24) respectively from zero, one, and two or more active drugs strata. Nine of the 18 trials were considered to have a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy results demonstrated that the groups of HIV-experienced patients receiving the new ARV + OBT were more likely to achieve viral suppression when compared to the control groups. However, most of these trials may be at a high risk of bias. Thus, there is still not enough evidence to stipulate which combinations are the most effective for therapeutic regimens that are to be used sequentially due to documented multi-resistance.

Third- and Late Line Treatments of Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Still More to Be Done.

In recent years, advances of anticancer and supportive therapies have determined a gradual improvement in survival rates and patients' general conditions in metastatic gastric cancer (mGC), allowing them to receive further treatments. The choice of treatment is driven by performance status, age, stage of disease, number of metastatic sites and time from the first to third line of treatment. Targets such as microsatellite instability, PD-L1 expression, and HER2 overexpression or amplification may be addressed to personalise treatment and prolong survival. Despite a growing number of third line options that have provided clinicians with greater opportunities to customise treatments, up to date few agents have been demonstrated as effective after two standard lines for mGC; for these reasons, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy were all widely investigated in both phase II and phase III studies. Overall, TAS-102, apatinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, trastuzumab, and pembrolizumab were demonstrated to be valid options in the third line scenario for mGC patient refractory to at least two lines of therapy. A multimodal approach based on chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted agents, a personalised nutritional programme as well as the research of new predictive biomarkers may pave the way to new strategies to identify the best treatment for each patient.

Real-world overall survival of patients receiving cetuximab in later lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Aim: To examine characteristics of and treatment duration and real-world overall survival (rwOS) in patients receiving cetuximab as second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Materials & methods: This was a retrospective study of 1096 and 684 patients in 2L and 3L cohorts, respectively. Results: The most common cetuximab-based regimens were cetuximab + folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan (2L: 44%; 3L: 32%) and cetuximab + irinotecan (2L: 28%; 3L: 35%). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and stepwise Cox regression model analysis demonstrated median treatment duration and rwOS of 3.7 and 14.4 months, respectively, in patients receiving treatment in the 2L cohort. In the 3L cohort, treatment duration was 3.3 months and rwOS was 12.0 months. Conclusion: This large real-world study provides evidence of rwOS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab-based regimens as 2L or 3L treatment.

In this retrospective study, the authors examined baseline characteristics of and treatment duration and real-world overall survival (rwOS) in 1096 and 684 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab as second-line (2L) and third-line (3L) treatment, respectively. The most common cetuximab-based regimens were cetuximab + folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan (2L: 44%; 3L: 32%) and cetuximab + irinotecan (2L: 28%; 3L: 35%). Median treatment duration and rwOS were 3.7 and 14.4 months, respectively, in patients receiving treatment in the 2L cohort. In the 3L cohort, median treatment duration was 3.3 months and rwOS was 12.0 months. This large real-world study provides evidence of rwOS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab-based regimens as 2L or 3L treatment.

An analysis of factors that influence patient preference of third-line therapy for overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with overactive bladder (OAB) refractory to first- and second-line therapy may pursue third-line therapies, including intradetrusor onabotulinum toxin-A (BTX), peripheral tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), and sacral neuromodulation (SNM). The factors that influence patient preference for each treatment modality have not yet been explored. This study sought to investigate the specific parameters that patients consider in choosing a third-line therapy for OAB. METHODS: Patients refractory to first- and second-line therapies for OAB were identified in our outpatient clinic and asked to watch an educational video providing information on the risks and benefits of each third-line treatment option. They were then given a questionnaire to rank their preference of therapy and select reasons for why they found each therapy favorable and unfavorable. Patients under age 18 years, non-English speakers, those with a developmental disability, and those with a diagnosis of neurogenic bladder were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 98 patients included in the study, 40 participants (40.8%) chose intradetrusor BTX injections, 34 (34.7%) chose PTNS, and 16 (16.3%) chose SNM as their first choice. Seven patients (7.1%) chose none of the offered therapies, and one patient (1.0%) chose all three therapies with equal preference. BTX was found most attractive for its long efficacy (47%); its least attractive feature was the potential need for self-catheterization due to urinary retention (54%). PTNS was found most attractive for being a nonsurgical option (32%) and having no reported significant complications (39%); its least attractive feature was need for frequent office visits (61%). SNM was found most attractive for its potential for long-term relief without frequent office visits (53%); its least attractive feature was need for an implanted device (33%). Patients opting for SNM had higher scores on Urinary Distress Inventory-6 and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 questionnaires when compared to patients opting for BTX injections or PTNS (p < 0.05). 47.4% of patients eventually pursued a third-line therapy. Of those, there was a 67.6% concordance rate between the therapy patients ranked first and the therapy they eventually underwent. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with more severe OAB symptoms opt for more invasive and less time-consuming therapy with the potential for long-term relief, namely SNM. Despite thorough counseling, many patients do not progress to advanced OAB therapies. Understanding factors that influence patients' affinity toward a specific type of treatment can aid with individualized counseling on third-line OAB therapies.

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Part II-Cost of Care Among Patients in Advanced Phases or Later Lines of Therapy in Chronic Phase in the United States from a Commercial Perspective.

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard-of-care treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). Despite advances in therapy, there remains a proportion of patients with CML-CP that are refractory/intolerant to TKIs, and these patients cycle through multiple lines of therapy. Moreover, even with TKIs, some patients progress to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), which is associated with particularly poor clinical outcomes. Objectives: To describe real-world treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs of patients with CML-CP reaching later lines of therapy or progressing to AP/BC in the United States. Methods: Adult CML patients from administrative claims data (January 1, 2000-June 30, 2019) were classified by health state: on third-line (CML-CP On Treatment), on fourth or later lines (CML-CP Post-Discontinuation), or progressed to AP/BC (CML-AP/BC). Outcomes were assessed by health state. Results: There were 296 (4620 patient-months), 83 (1644 patient-months), and 949 (25 593 patient-months) patients classified in the CML-CP On Treatment, CML-CP Post-Discontinuation, and CML-AP/BC cohorts, respectively. Second-generation TKIs (nilotinib, dasatinib, and bosutinib) were most commonly used in the CML-CP On Treatment (69.1% of patient-months) and CML-CP Post-Discontinuation cohorts (59.1% of patient-months). Three-month outpatient incidence rates (IRs) were 7.6, 8.3, and 7.0 visits in the CML-CP On Treatment, CML-CP Post-Discontinuation, and CML-AP/BC cohort, respectively, with mean costs of $597 per service. Three-month inpatient IRs were 0.6, 0.7, and 1.4 days in the CML-CP On Treatment, CML-CP Post-Discontinuation, and CML-AP/BC cohort, respectively, with mean costs of $5892 per day. Mean hematopoietic stem cell transplantation cost was $352 333; mean 3-month terminal care cost was $107 013. Discussion: Cost of CML care is substantial among patients with CML reaching third-line, fourth or later lines, or progressing to AP/BC, suggesting that the disease is associated with a significant economic and clinical burden. From third-line to fourth or later lines, HRU was observed to increase, and the incidence of inpatient days was particularly high for those who progressed to AP/BC. Conclusion: In this study, patients with CML cycling through TKIs in later lines of therapy or progressing to AP/BC experienced substantial HRU and costs, suggesting unmet treatment needs.