Bowel Urgency in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease: A Cross-Sectional Real-World Survey in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Bowel urgency (BU) is among the most disruptive of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms. However, data on its prevalence and association with disease activity are limited. This real-world study of Japanese patients with IBD evaluated BU prevalence and compared clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between patients with and without BU. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi IBD Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Physicians reported demographic and clinical data, including disease activity measures (Mayo score and CD Activity Index [CDAI]), for consulting patients, who voluntarily completed a patient-reported questionnaire, including HRQoL measures (Short IBD Questionnaire [SIBDQ] and EQ-5D-5L). Outcomes were compared between patients with and without BU using t-, Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Of 120 UC patients, 27.5% (n = 33) self-reported BU; physicians were unaware of BU in 54.5% (n = 18) of these patients. Patients with BU had higher mean Mayo scores (p < 0.01) and lower mean SIBDQ scores (47.9 vs 56.6, p < 0.01) than patients without BU, with mean EQ-5D-5L scores 0.83 and 0.87, respectively (p = 0.06). Physicians were satisfied with treatment but believed better control could be achieved for 39.4% of patients with BU and 35.6% without. Of 114 CD patients, 17.5% (n = 20) self-reported BU; physicians were unaware of BU in 75.0% (n = 15) of these patients. Patients with BU had higher mean CDAI scores (p < 0.01) and lower mean SIBDQ (48.7 vs 56.2, p < 0.01) and EQ-5D-5L scores (0.81 vs 0.88, p < 0.01) than patients without BU. Physicians were satisfied but believed better control could be achieved for 40.0% of patients with BU vs 19.1% without. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BU have worse clinical outcomes and HRQoL than patients without, underlining the need for improved physician-patient communication regarding BU and new IBD therapeutic options.

Usage of epidermal growth factor mutation testing and impact on treatment patterns in non-small cell lung cancer: An international observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (EGFRm) are common oncogene drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This real-world study explored treatment patterns and time to receive EGFRm test results in patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC. METHODS: A cross-sectional medical chart review was completed May-August 2020 in Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Taiwan, UK, and USA. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC and a positive EGFRm test result January-December 2017. Data were abstracted from NSCLC diagnosis to end of follow-up (31 March 2020) or patient's death whichever occurred earlier. The index date was the date of EGFRm confirmation. RESULTS: 223 physicians provided data for 1,793 patients. Patients' mean age was 64.7 years, 54 % were male, 30.7 % had no history of smoking. Overall, 78 % of EGFRm test results were received ≤ 2 weeks after request (range of median 7-14 days across countries). Median time from advanced NSCLC diagnosis to EGFRm test result was 18 days (median range 10-22 days across countries). Over a third (37 %) of patients received a systemic treatment prior to EGFRm result; chemotherapy (25 %) and EGFR-TKI (15 %) were most commonly prescribed; post-EGFR test-result was EGFR-TKI (68 %); 80 % of patients initiated EGFR-TKI at any time point post-NSCLC diagnosis. Of those receiving a first-line EGFR-TKI post-EGFRm testing, 84 % received a TKI alone, 12 % in combination with chemotherapy, and 3 % with other treatments. Median time from first-line EGFR-TKI initiation post-EGFRm testing to first subsequent treatment was 19.8 months. CONCLUSION: Over one-fifth of patients wait >14 days for their EGFRm test results, affecting their likelihood of receiving first-line EGFR-TKI with 20 % of patients never receiving EGFR TKI treatment. There was significant inter-country variability in the proportion of patients receiving EGFR TKIs. Our study highlights the need to improve EGFRm testing turnaround times and treatment initiation across countries.

Impact of next-generation hormonal agents on treatment patterns among patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a real-world study from the United States, five European countries and Japan.

BACKGROUND: Until five years ago, the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment landscape was dominated by the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. However, novel hormonal agents (NHAs) and chemotherapy are now approved for male patients with mHSPC. This study aimed to understand the impact NHA approvals had on mHSPC real-world treatment patterns and to identify the key factors associated with NHA or chemotherapy (± ADT) usage vs ADT alone. METHODS: Data were collected from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme (DSP)™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their consulting patients conducted in the United States (US), five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom), and Japan between January and August 2020. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics for individual countries, regions, and all countries combined. Pairwise analyses were used to further investigate differences between treatment groups at global level. RESULTS: 336 physicians provided data on 1195 mHSPC patients. Globally, at data collection, the most common mHSPC regimen initiated first was ADT alone (47%), followed by NHAs (± ADT) (31%, of which 21% was abiraterone, 8% was enzalutamide, and 2% was apalutamide) and chemotherapy (± ADT) (19%). The highest rates of ADT alone usage were observed in Japan (78%) and Italy (66%), and the lowest in Spain (34%) and in the US (36%). Our results showed that clinical decision making was driven by patient fitness, compliance, tolerance of adverse events, and balance of impact on quality of life vs overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world survey offered early insights into the evolving mHSPC treatment paradigm. It showed that in 2020, ADT alone remained the most common initial mHSPC therapy, suggesting that physicians may prefer using treatments which they are familiar and have experience with, despite clinical trial evidence of improved survival with NHAs or chemotherapy (± ADT) vs ADT alone. Results also indicated that physicians prescribed specific mHSPC treatments primarily based on the following criteria: patient preference, disease burden/severity, and the performance status and comorbidities of the patient. To fully appreciate the rapidly changing mHSPC treatment landscape and monitor NHA uptake, additional real-world studies are required.