Disease landscape of advanced HER2-breast cancer patients by treatment line in three EU countries and USA.

Aim: To report treatment patterns and quality of life (QoL) in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients. Methods: Data were drawn from a cross-sectional survey in Europe and USA. Results: Hormone plus targeted therapy was the most frequent first-line (1L, 62%) and second-line (2L, 45%) treatment for HR+/HER2-patients. Chemotherapy was most frequent at third-line or greater (3L+, 39%) for HR+/HER2- patients, 2L (51%) and 3L+ (48%) for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Time to progression was 13.8 (2L) and 11.0 (3L+) months for HR+/HER2- patients. No comparisons were observed for TNBC patients. EQ-5D-5L scores were highest in patients at 1L and lowest at 3L+. Conclusion: Reduced QoL and treatment response were reported in patients at later lines of therapy.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Differences in survival are seen depending on how widespread or advanced the cancer is, how many different treatments the patient has been given, as well as whether certain receptors on the tumor are present or absent. Many new treatments are available which can target these receptors. These treatments have improved survival in patients with advanced breast cancer, but other benefits for the patient are not always clear. In addition, differences between countries are possible as official guidance can vary. This study aimed to understand these issues, by asking physicians and their patients across Europe and USA for their views on quality of life and satisfaction with their treatments. We found that, in general, physicians prescribed treatments as recommended in the treatment guidelines. As breast cancer progressed and treatment stopped working, patients were switched on to different treatments. Survival, quality of life and treatment satisfaction were all worse in patients who had switched treatments. It appears that the patients lose confidence that their new treatment will work to improve their quality of life. We also saw differences in some of these outcomes between Europe and USA, which were likely due to differences in the treatment guidelines between countries. Both quality of life and treatment satisfaction are important for the well-being of patients with advanced breast cancer as they now live longer with these new treatments. This should be considered by physicians and taken into account for future work.

The long-term clinical and economic benefits of treating advanced COPD patients with single-inhaler triple therapy in Quebec, Canada - The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. METHODS: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function). INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IMPACT trial NCT02164513.

A clinical systematic literature review of treatments among patients with advanced and/or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive breast cancer.

Aim: This systematic literature review aims to summarize the efficacy/effectiveness of treatments, including eribulin (ERI)-based and anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) treatments in advanced/metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. Methods: Three databases from 2016 to September 2021 were searched for clinical trials and observational studies in patients receiving first-line (1L) standard of care (SOC), second-line (2L) SOC or third-line or subsequent lines (3L+). Results: 2692 citations were screened, and 38 studies were included. Eleven studies were randomized-controlled trials (RCTs; 5 in 1L, 6 in 3L+), 6 were single-arm trials (5 in 1L, 1 in 3L+) and 21 were observational studies (13 in 1L, 6 in 2L, 4 in 3L+ [note that studies with subgroups for 1L, 2L, 3L+ are double-counted]). Longer overall survival (OS) was associated with 1L and 2L treatment, and for 3L+ studies that included ERI, ERI or trastuzumab (Tmab) + ERI led to longer OS than treatments of physician's choice (median OS of 11, 10 and 8.9 months, respectively). Progression-free survival was 9 months in Tmab + pertuzumab (Pmab) + ERI, 4 months in Tmab + ERI and 3.3 months in ERI. Conclusion: Available treatments provide a wide range of efficacy. However, later lines lack standardization and conclusions on comparative effectiveness are limited by differing trial designs. Thus, the chance of prolonged survival with new agents warrants further research.

Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies related to PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 inhibitors across tumor types: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of how the immune system regulates tumor growth has innovated the use of immunotherapeutics to treat various cancers. The impact of such therapies, including programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, on the production of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and their impact on outcomes, is poorly understood. This study aims to evaluate the clinical trial evidence on ADA incidence associated with PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4 inhibitors in the treatment of cancer and to assess associations between treatment administered, ADA incidence, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Embase®, Medline®, and EBM Reviews were searched via the OVID® platform on February 15, 2022. Conference proceedings, clinical trial registries, and global regulatory and reimbursement body websites were also searched. Eligible publications included clinical trials enrolling patients receiving cancer treatment with either PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 reporting outcomes including incidence or prevalence of ADAs and the impact of immunogenicity on treatment safety and efficacy. Reference lists of eligible publications were also searched. The review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and evidence quality assessment was conducted using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. RESULTS: After screening 4160 records and reviewing 97 full publications, a total of 34 publications reporting on 68 trials were included. A further 41 relevant clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov and a further 32 from searches of packaging inserts. In total, 141 relevant trials covering 15 different checkpoint inhibitors and 16 different tumor types were included. Across the included trials, atezolizumab was associated with the highest incidence of ADAs (29.6% of 639 patients), followed by nivolumab (11.2% of 2,085 patients). Combination checkpoint inhibitor treatment appeared to increase the rate of ADAs versus monotherapy. Only 17 trials reported on the impact of ADAs on treatment outcomes with mixed results for the impact of ADAs on treatment efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of cancer are immunogenic, with the incidence of treatment-emergent ADAs varying between individual therapies. It remains unclear what impact ADAs have on treatment outcomes.

A network meta-analysis of immunotherapy-based treatments for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction: In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line-to-progression and second-line treatments for advanced NsqNSCLC informed Bayesian NMAs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end points. Results: Among first-line-to-progression treatments, pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the greatest OS benefit versus other regimens and a PFS benefit versus all but three regimens. Among second-line treatments, an OS benefit was seen for atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab versus docetaxel. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the maximum OS benefit in the first-line setting. In the second-line setting, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapies were better than docetaxel.

Is single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD cost-effective in the UK? The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: The IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52 weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (100/62.5/25 µg) compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: Patient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters. RESULTS: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs) (discounted) and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained versus FF/VI and £6418/QALY and £5225/LY gained versus UMEC/VI. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000/QALY, the probability that FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective was 96% versus FF/VI and 74% versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar in a subgroup of patients recommended triple therapy in the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence COPD guideline. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Efficacy and metabolic effects of lurasidone versus brexpiprazole in schizophrenia: a network meta-analysis.

Aim: To assess the relative efficacy and metabolic effects of lurasidone and brexpiprazole in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. Methods: Five lurasidone and three brexpiprazole trials were identified. In the absence of head-to-head trials, a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing lurasidone and brexpiprazole was performed. Results: Nonstatistically significant differences in efficacy measures were observed between lurasidone and brexpiprazole. Significant differences favoring lurasidone for weight change (-0.69 kg; 95% CrI: -1.22 to -0.15), total cholesterol (-7.60 mg/dl; 95% CrI: -13.94 to -1.22), and low-density lipoprotein (-6.58 mg/dl; 95% CrI: -12.11 to -1.04) were observed, with a trend indicating half the risk of experiencing ≥7% weight gain. Conclusion: This network meta-analysis suggested that lurasidone had similar efficacy and fewer metabolic effects than brexpiprazole in patients with acute schizophrenia.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models. RESULTS: We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.