Adherence, persistence and treatment switching in psoriasis.

Aim: This study aims to investigate drug utilization patterns in the treatment of psoriasis (PsO) from 1 to 5 years in a real-life setting with Adalimumab (Ada), Etanercept (Eta), Ustekinumab (Ust), Golimumab (Gol), Ixekizumab (Ixe), Secukinumab (Sec) and Apremilast (Apr). Materials & methods: Data from an observational study were used to calculate adherence using the Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) method and persistence. Results & conclusion: Treatment adherence was found to be good for all the drugs studied across all years of analysis, while persistence was suboptimal, showing a marked decrease from the third year of study onward. In the treatment of PsO, greater attention needs to be paid to treatment persistence.

This summary explains that when a patient follows their doctor's medication instructions and continues using the same medication over time to treat a condition like psoriasis, they can expect safer and more effective outcomes. This study examined these aspects to assess how different medications perform over the long term and to explore ways to improve their prescription. The findings highlight that the main issue is not so much in following instructions but in continuing to use the same medication throughout the treatment duration. Raising awareness among healthcare professionals about these issues is crucial to help patients maintain consistent therapy over time and improve their care pathway.

ADA_ETA_BIO2021: real-world evaluation of adherence, persistence, and cost-effectiveness of originator and biosimilar biologic drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter study in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the adherence, persistence, and costs of bDMARDs through a multicentre study of nine Italian hospital pharmacies. METHODS: The drugs analysed were Abatacept, Adalimumab, Certolizumab, Etanercept, Golimumab and Tocilizumab.Adult subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis were considered in the analysis.In this study, we calculated the following metrics: Adherence to treatment was evaluated as dose-intensity, which is the ratio between the amount of medication received and probably taken by the patient at home (Received Daily Dose, RDD) and the amount prescribed by the clinician (Prescribed Daily Dose, PDD). Persistence was calculated as the number of days between the first and last dispensing of the same drug. Lastly, costs were assessed based on persistence to treatment and normalized for adherence. RESULTS: Adherence to treatment was found to be above 0.8 for all drugs studied. The median persistence for a 5-year treatment period was 1.4 years for Abatacept, 1.7 years for Adalimumab, 1.8 years for Certolizumab, 1.4 years for Etanercept, 1.3 years for Golimumab, and 1.6 years for Tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre retrospective observational study of bDMARDs used in the treatment of RA showed that, for all the drugs studied, there was no problem with adherence to treatment but rather a difficulty in maintaining treatment with the same drug over time.

Medication adherence reporting in pivotal clinical trials: overview of oral oncological drugs.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how and to what extent adherence to medication is reported in pivotal clinical trials of oral cancer drugs. METHODS: All drugs authorised by the European Medicines Agency from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2019 were considered for analysis. For each pivotal trial we extracted the journal of publication, phase of the study, posology, mention of adherence within the main text of the published article or additional material and the terms in which the adherence was reported. RESULTS: Thirty drugs were included in the analysis from 56 clinical trials. Eleven articles (19.6%) contained a mention of medication adherence in the main document, 26 (46.4%) in the supplementary material and 19 (33.9%) did not contain any reference to adherence. Seven studies reported medication adherence between the results, expressed as number of patients discontinuing treatment for non-compliance and mean or median percentage. CONCLUSIONS: Medication adherence in pivotal clinical trials of oral oncological drugs is poorly represented. There should be a greater level of reporting in the results and it should be included among the minimum set of recommendations in reporting health research.

Available information about paediatric use of onco-haematological drugs authorized by EMA since 2016.

BACKGROUND: The treatment options available to children with cancer are limited. This is why for more than 10 years, the European Medicine Agency (EMA) has stated that all drugs to be marketed must be tested on the paediatric population in accordance with the Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP). The objective of this study is to make a cross sectional analysis of the information related to the use of cancer drugs authorised on the European market in the paediatric population. METHOD: The European Public Assessment Reports and PIPs have been considered. The following data were extracted for onco-haematological drugs approved since 2016: paediatric indications, information about the paediatric population in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and presence and characteristics of PIPs. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the drugs was made from the point of view of the paediatric population. RESULTS: Forty-eight drugs with onco-haematological indications have been authorised for marketing since 2016, 7 (15%) of these have paediatric indications. Two (4%) drugs have no paediatric indication but have information related to the paediatric population within SmPC. Forty-one (85%) drugs have no reference to the paediatric population in SmPC. Seventeen (35%) drugs out of 48 do not have PIPs and 11 have been granted a waiver to present the results of paediatric studies. The other 19 active ingredients have a total of 28 PIPs. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Most of the onco-haematological drugs approved by EMA since 2016 have neither paediatric indications nor mentions about paediatric use in SmPC. PIPs represent an opportunity, but demand for the paediatric population is still huge.

A multicentre study with real-world data of the use of palbociclib in the treatment of breast cancer: Treatment duration correlates with dose reductions.

OBJECTIVE: Palbociclib, a highly selective reversible CDK4-6 kinase inhibitor, is indicated in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or in combination with fulvestrant in women who had received prior endocrine treatment. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant in increasing progression-free survival in patients who relapsed or progressed on previous endocrine therapy, or in combination with aromatase inhibitor in patients who had not received previous treatments. We analysed the prescribing patterns of palbociclib in real practice correlating it with the evidence of treatment-related toxicity management and to time-to-treatment discontinuation and treatment adherence. METHODS: For the observational, retrospective study, data were collected from five Italian hospital centres that prescribed palbociclib between April 2017 and April 2020. Each centre provided data derived from an administrative database of adult patients treated with palbociclib for the two therapeutic indications.Treatment adherence was calculated using the proportion of days covered method while time-to-treatment discontinuation was defined as the difference between the first and last date treatment was administered plus the days ideally covered by the last date treatment was given. RESULTS: There were 375 patients enrolled during the study period, of whom 159 were treated with palbociclib and aromatase inhibitor and 216 were treated with palbociclib and fulvestrant. The time-to-treatment discontinuation was 8.9 months in the case of P + f (95% CI: 7.1-12.7) and 13.7 months in the case of P + ia (95% CI: 8.9-17.5). In both cohorts, treatments that received at least one dose reduction had a statistically higher time-to-treatment discontinuation than those without dose reduction (17.7 months vs. 9.2 and 16.6 vs. 7.4).The mean adherence in our study was 0.9 and remained high in treatments with one dose reduction (0.83) and this with two dose reductions (0.87). CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, it appears that the management of toxicities through reducing doses, as required by the Summary of Product Characteristics, results in a better outcome in terms of therapy duration, and therefore time to failure due to progression or toxicity.

Safety and Effectiveness of Multiple Switching Between Originators and Biosimilars: Literature Review and Status Report on Interchangeability.

To date, numerous biosimilars are available in Europe and the practice of switching between originator and biosimilar or between two different biosimilars has become very widespread. However, multiple switching has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study is to conduct a literature review to assess the effectiveness and safety of multiple switches. All PubMed articles involving multiple switches from originator to biosimilars or between different biosimilars were considered. The relevant data on effectiveness and safety were extracted from these studies and the results were reported through descriptive analysis. Fifteen studies were considered, of which 11 were observational and 4 clinical trials. Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis were the most studied diseases. All studies reported that the effectiveness and safety in patients whose treatment involved multiple switches, was comparable to patients whose treatment involved a single or no switch at all. Some therapeutic fields such as oncology and renal insufficiency were not represented at all in the multiple switch studies. New evidence is desperately needed and should be made available to the scientific community and decision-makers.

Randomized clinical trials and real life studies: Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients in oral target therapies for renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS.Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.