The power of hope: Views of Ovarian Cancer patients on how maintenance therapy Affects their Lives (VOCAL).

Aim: To assess maintenance preference and trade-offs for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Patients completed a time trade-off exercise ranking five maintenance approaches. Patients' preferred approach was compared with alternatives to determine the progression-free time they would trade off to remain on their preferred approach. Results: Of 152 patients (median age 53 years, 68% White), 56% chose one of four maintenance medications, mostly to feel proactive and 44% chose active surveillance. Compared with their preferred approach, patients were willing to trade a mean progression-free time before switching of 2.3 months for once-daily oral medications, 3.2 months for twice-daily oral medications, 5.5 months for intravenous infusions every 3 weeks (iv. q3), 6.1 months for active surveillance and 7.5 months for iv. q3 and twice-daily oral. Conclusion: Findings highlight the importance of patients' awareness of all maintenance approaches and involving them in the decision-making process.

What is the article about? The VOCAL study looked at maintenance approach preferences of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Maintenance approach refers to the methods used after a patient has completed their initial chemotherapy to prevent disease progression for as long as possible. US patients completed an online survey, ranking five different maintenance approaches: No medication (active surveillance); Once-daily oral medication (e.g. pills); Twice-daily oral medication; Medication by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks; Medication by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks and oral twice-daily. Patients were asked to assume the same time to disease progression for all five approaches and the same side effects for the four approaches involving medications (2­5). Each patient then indicated how much time to disease progression they were willing to trade off to remain on their preferred approach before switching to an alternative. What were the results? Overall, 152 patients completed the survey (median age: 53 years, 68% White). Most patients preferred a medication approach (56%, n = 85) to active surveillance (44%, n = 67). Of the 85 patients who preferred medication, 66% (n = 56) reported this was to feel proactive in preventing their cancer returning. Once-daily oral medication was the most acceptable alternative to the patients' preferred maintenance approach, given they were willing to trade the least 'disease-free' time (2.3 months) before accepting a switch. What do the results mean? Individual patient preferences vary, and healthcare professionals should work with patients to determine which approach is most appropriate for them.

Real-world treatment patterns in patients initiating third-line therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively analyze real-world treatment patterns in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who initiated third-line treatment in Europe. METHODS: German and Italian administrative claims data were sourced from the German AOK PLUS health insurance fund and Italian local health units (2016-2020). Data for the United Kingdom (UK), France, and Spain were sourced from medical chart reviews (MCRs) from 2016 to 2018 (historical) and 2019 to 2021 (new) using electronic case report forms. RESULTS: Across all countries, immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD)-based regimens were prominent in the third-line setting. From 2016 to 2020, lenalidomide-dexamethasone was most common in Italy (18.0%) and Germany (12.7%). From 2019 to 2021, the most common regimen was ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (67.5%) in the UK, pomalidomide-dexamethasone (17.1%) in France, and daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (15.0%) in Spain. In the historical data (2016-2018), third-line lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-dexamethasone doublet use across the UK (>47%), France (>46%), and Spain (>33%) was high. From historical to new, triplet use increased in Spain (>19% to >60%) as did anti-CD38 agent use in France (15.1% to 51.9%) and Spain (19.7% to 42.1%). CONCLUSIONS: From 2016 to 2021, third-line regimens were mostly IMiD based. The MCR data demonstrated evolving treatment choices from 2016 to 2018 and 2019 to 2021, providing insights into uptake of novel agents and current RRMM European clinical practice.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK.

Purpose: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial.

Purpose: The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Patients and Methods: The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: -£2600, -£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Long-Term Inhaled Corticosteroid Withdrawal in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treated with Triple Therapy in Spain.

Purpose: To determine the clinical and economic impact of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal in Spanish patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (TT) with ICS, long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Patients and Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study of BIG-PAC database medical records. Patients aged ≥40 years receiving TT from 2016 to 2018 were followed for 1 year. Two cohorts were identified: patients continuing TT (ICS+LABA+LAMA), and patients receiving TT with ICS withdrawn (LABA+LAMA). Variables included medication, exacerbations (moderate and severe), pneumonia, mortality, health resource use (HRU), and cost per patient/year. Cohorts were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Multivariate statistical analysis using analysis of covariance and Cox proportional risks was conducted. Results: Of 6541 patients included, 5740 (87.8%) continued TT and 801 (12.2%) had ICS withdrawn. Patients with ICS withdrawal were younger, had lower disease burden, higher ICS doses, and more exacerbations compared with those continuing ICS. PSM matched 795 patients in each cohort. Mean age was 68.5 years (SD: 11.2), 69.9% were male, and mean Charlson index was 2.0. Patients with ICS withdrawal had more total exacerbations in the 12 months following withdrawal compared with patients continuing TT (36.6% vs 31.4%; p=0.030). No significant differences were found for pneumonia (3.3% vs 3.6%; p=0.583) and mortality (9.9% vs 7.5%; p=0.092). Median time to first exacerbation was shorter in patients with ICS withdrawal compared with those continuing ICS (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57-0.83; p<0.001). Mean health cost per patient/year among patients with ICS withdrawal was higher than those continuing TT (€2993 vs €2130; p<0.001). Conclusion: ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD receiving TT was associated with increased exacerbations, HRU, and costs compared with continuing TT, with health and economic impacts on patients and the Spanish National Healthcare System, respectively. Pneumonia and mortality rates were similar between groups.

Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in Symptomatic Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD from a UK Perspective Using the GALAXY Model.

INTRODUCTION: Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data. METHODS: The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results. RESULTS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (-0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £690 (£231, £1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £1336 (£1006, £2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol. CONCLUSION: Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol.

Impact of body mass index on survival and serious adverse events in advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with bevacizumab: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer accounts for 28% of all cancer deaths, more deaths than any other cancer in the United States. The influence of body composition has been evaluated in several studies, specifically, the influence of obesity on lung cancer survival. Outcomes have been mixed, with some studies demonstrating a paradoxical beneficial effect in early lung cancer where survival is improved in obese patients. The study aim was to evaluate the impact of obesity on overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and occurrence of serious adverse events (SAE) in clinical trials evaluating bevacizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis combining available individual level data from bevacizumab randomized clinical trials available through the Clinical Study Data Request database. The primary outcome measured in our analysis was the influence of bevacizumab on OS stratified by body mass index (BMI). In addition to OS, both PFS and the occurrence of SAE requiring therapy interruption were evaluated. All endpoints were evaluated in patients who were obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2) compared with non-obese (BMI <30.0 kg/m2). As a sensitivity analysis, endpoints were also evaluated in patients who were overweight (BMI ≥25.0 kg/m2) compared with non-overweight (BMI <25.0 kg/m2). In addition to analysis of each individual study, a meta-analysis was performed in order to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HR). Hazard ratios for both OS and PFS were calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Odds ratios for SAE were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. The validity of the regression models was tested using a log-log plot and overall fit using the goodness of fit test. RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates using a Cox proportional hazards model and combining the resulting adjusted hazard ratios using meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between obese and non-obese groups for OS or PFS. In addition, when treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event was assessed, none of the trials showed a significant difference between the obese and non-obese groups. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of clinical trial data, obesity was not associated with worse survival versus non-obese individuals in advanced NSCLC. In addition, serious adverse events were similar between patients with and without obesity.