Impact of PD1 and PDL1 immunotherapy on non-small cell lung cancer outcomes: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Despite comprising many cancer diagnoses, few treatments are suitable for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Trials suggest blockade of programmed death 1 (PD1) or its ligand (PDL1) may be effective for these patients. However, this therapy's impact on outcomes other than survival, and outcomes of patients not in trials, remains largely unknown. Therefore, we compared the effectiveness of PD1 and PDL1 immunotherapy to chemotherapy and placebo across multiple clinical outcomes. METHODS: Six databases were searched on 12-13 October 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab or durvalumab. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. Data for overall survival, progression-free survival, adverse effects (AEs) and quality of life (QoL) were descriptively and meta-analysed. Factors impacting treatment outcomes, including PDL1 expression, were explored. The similarity between RCT and observational data was assessed. RESULTS: From 5423 search results, 139 full texts and abstracts were included. Immunotherapy was associated with a lower risk of death than both comparators. In RCTs, the incidence of treatment-related AEs was approximately 20% lower among patients using immunotherapy compared with chemotherapy. However, no other consistent benefits were observed. Progression-free survival results were inconsistent. Improvements to QoL varied according to the instrument used; however, QoL was not recorded widely. Survival results were similar between study designs; however, AEs incidence was lower in observational studies. DISCUSSION: Among patients with aNSCLC, immunotherapy improved overall survival and incidence of treatment-related AEs compared with chemotherapy. Benefits to progression-free survival and QoL were less consistent. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019153345.

Cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited. METHODS: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence. RESULTS: At the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Domiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.

External Validation Of The Updated ADO Score In COPD Patients From The Birmingham COPD Cohort.

Background: Reviews suggest that the ADO score is the most discriminatory prognostic score for predicting mortality among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but a full evaluation and external validation within primary care settings is critical before implementation. Objectives: To validate the ADO score in prevalent and screen-detected primary care COPD cases at 3 years and at shorter time periods. Patients and methods: One thousand eight hundred and ninety-two COPD cases were recruited between 2012 and 2014 from 71 United Kingdom general practices as part of the Birmingham COPD Cohort study. Cases were either on the practice COPD register or screen-detected. We validated the ADO score for predicting 3-year mortality with 1-year and 2-year mortality as secondary endpoints using discrimination (area-under-the-curve (AUC)) and calibration plots. Results: One hundred and fifty-four deaths occurred within 3 years. The ADO score was discriminatory for predicting 3-year mortality (AUC= 0.74; 95% CI: 0.69-0.79). Similar performance was found for 1- (AUC= 0.73; 0.66-0.80) and 2-year mortality (0.72; 0.67-0.76). The ADO score showed reasonable calibration for predicting 3-year mortality (calibration slope 0.95; 0.70-1.19) but over-predicted in cases with higher predicted risks of mortality at 1 (0.79; 0.45-1.13) and 2-year (0.79; 0.57-1.01) mortality. Discussion: The ADO score showed promising discrimination in predicting 3-year mortality in a primary care population including screen-detected cases. It may need to be recalibrated if it is used to provide risk predictions for 1- or 2-year mortality since, in these time-periods, over-prediction was evident, especially in cases with higher predicted mortality risks.

Model-based evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of systematic case-finding for COPD in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: 'One-off' systematic case-finding for COPD using a respiratory screening questionnaire is more effective and cost-effective than routine care at identifying new cases. However, it is not known whether early diagnosis and treatment is beneficial in the longer term. We estimated the long-term cost-effectiveness of a regular case-finding programme in primary care. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 3-yearly systematic case-finding programme targeted to ever smokers aged ≥50 years with the current routine diagnostic process in UK primary care. Patient-level data on case-finding pathways was obtained from a large randomised controlled trial. Information on the natural history of COPD and treatment effects was obtained from a linked COPD cohort, UK primary care database and published literature. The discounted lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated from a health service perspective. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of systematic case-finding versus current care was £16 596 per additional QALY gained, with a 78% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. The base case result was robust to multiple one-way sensitivity analyses. The main drivers were response rate to the initial screening questionnaire and attendance rate for the confirmatory spirometry test. DISCUSSION: Regular systematic case-finding for COPD using a screening questionnaire in primary care is likely to be cost-effective in the long-term despite uncertainties in treatment effectiveness. Further knowledge of the natural history of case-found patients and the effectiveness of their management will improve confidence to implement such an approach.

Rare case of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis in two patients with α-1-antitrypsin deficiency (PiSZ).

We present two cases of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis occurring with α-1-antitrypsin deficiency, both PiSZ phenotype. The simultaneous occurrence of these two conditions has seldom been described in the literature, despite evidence of an association between α-1-antitrypsin deficiency and other forms of vasculitis. Both patients had pulmonary involvement and reported intermittent exacerbations of vasculitic symptoms. Both patients were managed on low-dose oral steroids and azathioprine remaining well with occasional exacerbations. It is important to consider whether there is an association between eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and α-1-antitrypsin deficiency, as this may lead to more severe pulmonary symptoms during exacerbations. If a genetic association between the two conditions is found, clinicians should be aware of the possible need to screen for α-1-antitrypsin deficiency in appropriate patients.