Quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib or interferon alfa: results from a phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: In an international, randomized phase III trial, sunitinib demonstrated statistically significant efficacy over interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) (progression-free survival time, 11 v 5 months, respectively; P < .001; objective response rate, 31% v 6%, respectively; P < .001). We report health-related quality-of-life (QOL) results from this trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty mRCC patients were randomly assigned to sunitinib (6-week cycles: 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off) or IFN-alpha (9 million units subcutaneous injections, three times weekly). QOL measures included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-15 item (FKSI-15), and the EuroQoL-5D's utility score (EQ-5D Index) and its visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). The primary QOL end point was the FKSI Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale. Higher scores indicated better outcomes (better QOL or fewer symptoms). Data were analyzed for the intent-to-treat population using mixed-effects models, supplemented with pattern-mixture models. RESULTS: Patients receiving sunitinib reported higher FKSI-15 and FKSI-DRS scores at each cycle than those receiving IFN-alpha, with a significant difference in the overall least squares means (3.27 and 1.98, respectively; P < .0001). Similarly, differences in least squares means for FACT-G (and all subscales), EQ-5D Index, and EQ-VAS were all significantly favorable for sunitinib (P < .01). Per pre-established thresholds, between-treatment differences in the mean scores were clinically meaningful after cycle 4 for FKSI-DRS and at all assessments for FKSI-15, FACT-G, and the FACT-G functional well-being subscale. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib provides superior QOL compared with IFN-alpha in mRCC patients.

Hospital resource use and cost of treatment with linezolid versus teicoplanin for treatment of serious gram-positive bacterial infections among hospitalized patients from South America and Mexico: results from a multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic that is effective for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. The oral formulation has the potential to reduce length of stay (LOS) when used as a substitute for parenteral glycopeptide antibiotics. In a recent multinational trial comparing linezolid (i.v. followed by oral administration) with teicoplanin (i.v. alone or switched to i.m. administration), linezolid was found to have better efficacy (P = 0.005) and similar safety for treating serious gram-positive infections. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare hospital resource use (primarily LOS) and cost of treatment between linezolid and teicoplanin for hospitalized patients with serious gram-positive infections in South America and Mexico using data from the multinational trial. METHODS: In a multinational, Phase IIIb, open-label, comparator-controlled trial, data were collected from hospitalized patients in centers in 6 South America can countries and Mexico with suspected or confirmed serious gram-positive infections. Patients were randomly assigned to receive i.v. linezolid 600 mg BID (for the entire treatment period [7-28 days] or switched to oral linezolid 600 mg BID) or i.v. teicoplanin (for the entire treatment period or switched to i.m. teicoplanin) dosed per approved prescription information. Data on direct medical resource utilization were collected for each patient, including duration and doses of study medication, location of hospitalization and LOS, comedications, tests and procedures, and outpatient service usage. Unit costs for the medical resources were obtained from secondary sources. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients (97 treated with linezolid and 106 treated with teicoplanin) were enrolled from these 7 countries. The unadjusted results showed that compared with teicoplanin, patients treated with linezolid had a 3.1-day shorter mean i.v. antibiotic treatment duration (P < 0.001), a 2.0- to 2.2-day shorter median and mean LOS (P = 0.03), and a 311 US dollars lower mean total cost of treatment (P = NS). After controlling for age, race, sex, site of infection, inpatient location when the antibiotic treatment started, number of historical and current comorbidities, and whether the patient had a diagnosis of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis, the multivariate adjusted results were similar to the unadjusted results. The linezolid group had a 1.6-day shorter adjusted LOS or 66% greater odds of early discharge (P = 0.049) and a 335 US dollars lower adjusted mean total cost of treatment (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Linezolid was associated with shorter LOS and duration of IV antibiotic treatment than teicoplanin for serious gram-positive infections in the population studied. Linezolid therapy has the potential to reduce the total cost of treatment.