Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants. METHODS: Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration. RESULTS: In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population. CONCLUSIONS: Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

A call to action to harmonize patient-reported outcomes evidence requirements across key European HTA bodies in oncology.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being included in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submissions for oncology drugs. This study aims to provide differences in PRO evidence requirements in oncology across key HTA bodies and calls for its harmonization. Method guidance provided by HTA bodies in Germany, France and the UK, and analysis of HTA reports of 20 oncology case studies were evaluated in this review. Differences exist between HTA bodies regarding guidance on how PRO data should be collected, reported and analyzed as well as how the data are reviewed and considered in oncology HTAs. HTA bodies can play a key role to harmonize PRO method guidance in collaboration with regulators and sponsors.

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are information provided directly by the person who is experiencing a disease or undergoing a treatment, without additional interpretation by a clinician or caregiver. Along with other outcome measures, PROs may be included in the body of evidence used by health technology assessment bodies in their review. In this article, the authors summarize the guidance documents published by key health technology assessment agencies and reviewed 20 past cancer drug case studies to understand how different agencies use PROs when deciding on recommendations for new cancer treatments.

Trends in real-world biomarker testing and overall survival in US patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Trends/outcomes associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended biomarker testing to guide advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment were assessed. Methods: Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were included using a nationwide electronic health record-derived database (1/1/2015-10/31/2021). Trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), factors associated with testing and associations between testing and outcomes were assessed. Results: PD-L1/genomic aberration testing rates increased from 33% (2016) to 81% (2018), then plateaued. Certain clinical and demographic factors were associated with a greater likelihood of PD-L1 testing. Patients tested for PD-L1 or genomic aberrations had longer overall survival (OS). Conclusion: Biomarker testing may be associated with improved OS in aNSCLC, though not all patients had equal access to testing.

Molecular diagnostics play a critical role in precision medicine. Treatment guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend that patients newly diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) undergo molecular testing for PD-L1 and genomic aberrations to guide treatment choices. Based on the results of such biomarker testing, physicians can select optimal treatments for individual patients. The aim of this study was to describe the latest trends and disparities in real-world biomarker testing with a focus on PD-L1 and to explore the impact of biomarker testing on outcomes in first-line treatment of aNSCLC in the United States. Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were identified in the Flatiron Health database (1/1/2015­10/31/2021; N = 30,631). Annual trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), demographic and clinical factors associated with PD-L1 testing, and associations between PD-L1 and/or ≥1 genomic aberration testing and outcomes (e.g., overall survival [OS], time-to-next treatment [TTNT]) were assessed. Biomarker testing in patients receiving first-line treatment for aNSCLC increased between 2015 and 2017 and plateaued between 2018 and 2021. By 2021, approximately 20% of patients did not receive PD-L1 testing before first-line treatment and not all patients had equal access to testing. Both PD-L1 and genomic aberration testing were associated with improved OS and TTNT. This is likely due to enhanced treatment decisions leading to optimal treatment selection. Future research is warranted to understand interventions to improve biomarker testing and reduce disparities between different patient populations to improve treatment outcomes.

Increasing emergency department attendances in central London with methamphetamine toxicity and associated harms.

BACKGROUND: Methamphetamine is a stimulant drug of abuse with increasing prevalence of use worldwide leading to public health concern. While previous research by our group a decade ago found no evidence of increasing harms associated with methamphetamine use in the UK, there are conflicting data on whether or not this is still the case. This paper aims to identify trends in methamphetamine-related harms and characterise the clinical features of ED presentations involving methamphetamine with gamma-hydroxybutyrate/gamma-butyrolactone (GHB/GBL). METHODS: We retrospectively interrogated a database of all toxicology-related presentations to two central London EDs, extracting data on drugs involved for presentations relating to methamphetamine between 2005 and 2018 to enable analysis of trends. Further clinical data were extracted for presentations between 2014 and 2018 to give a 4-year case series. RESULTS: A total of 1244 presentations involving the use of methamphetamine were identified. The number of presentations rose from 4 in 2005 (1.9% of all recreational drug presentations) to 294 (16.2%) in 2018. A total of 850 cases were identified for the 2014-2018 case series, 94.9% were male with a median (range) age of 35.1 (16-67) years. The most common clinical features in the methamphetamine presentations were neuropsychiatric: agitation (41.5%), anxiety (35.2%), hallucinations (16.5%) and psychosis (14.8%). GHB/GBL was co-used in 54.2% of presentations and appeared to attenuate the neuropsychiatric features seen. Use of GHB/GBL was associated with a higher Poisoning Severity Score and requirement for level 2/3 (high dependency unit/intensive care unit (ICU)) care. CONCLUSION: ED attendances in central London relating to methamphetamine use have risen over the last decade. Combining methamphetamine with GHB/GBL is common and is associated with a higher Poisoning Severity Score and need for ICU level care. Further work is required to establish whether further resources need to be directed at this clinical and public health problem.

Impaired Quality of Life, Work, and Activities Among Adults with Clostridium difficile Infection: A Multinational Survey.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of humanistic detriments of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) remains limited. AIMS: To assess humanistic burden associated with CDI. METHODS: Self-reported National Health and Wellness Survey data between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed for the USA, five European countries, China, and Brazil. Outcome measures included SF-36v2® for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Respondents (≥ 18 years old) were classified as (1) currently treated doctor-diagnosed CDI (C-CDI), (2) doctor-diagnosed prior CDI (P-CDI), or (3) never experienced CDI (NO-CDI). Regression modeling assessed the association between CDI status and outcomes, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 352,780 respondents, 299, 2111, and 350,370 met the criteria for C-CDI, P-CDI, and NO-CDI, respectively, with 45% of the total from the USA. C-CDI and P-CDI respondents were older, were less often employed and had more comorbidities than those with NO-CDI. After adjustment for covariates, C-CDI and P-CDI had significantly lower HRQoL relative to NO-CDI for mental (MCS 39, 43 vs. 46) and physical (PCS 39, 41 vs. 46) component summary scores, and health utility (SF-6D 0.58, 0.64 vs. 0.71) (all p < 0.05), meeting common thresholds for minimally important differences. Those with C-CDI and P-CDI reported missing more work (21, 16 vs. 8%), greater impairment while working (43, 34 vs. 22%), and more activity impairment (61, 49 vs. 34%) than those with NO-CDI (all p < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CDI is associated with meaningfully worse HRQoL and greater impairment to work and activities compared with NO-CDI. The impairment directly attributable to CDI requires further evaluation.

The relative burden of community-acquired pneumonia hospitalizations in older adults: a retrospective observational study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The risk of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) increases with age and significantly impacts morbidity and mortality in the elderly population. The burden of illness and cost of preventing CAP has not been compared to other serious diseases. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used claims data from 2014 to 2015 and compared hospitalizations for CAP, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and osteoporotic fractures (OF) in adults aged ≥65 years enrolled in a Medicare Advantage insurance plan. Individuals who had not already been hospitalized for one of these conditions and did not have evidence of long-term care were included in the study. Hospitalizations for each condition were described by length of stay, readmissions, mortality, and total costs. Preventive measures included vaccinations for CAP and medications for MI, stroke, and OF. RESULTS: A total of 1,949,352 individuals were included in the cohort. In 2015, the rate of CAP-related hospitalizations was the highest at 846.7 per 100,000 person-years compared to 405 for MI, 278.9 for stroke, and 343.9 for OF. Vaccination costs for CAP were $40.2 million including $14.1 million for pneumococcal and $26.1 million for influenza vaccines. The cost of preventive medications for MI and stroke reached over $661 million and OF totaled $169 million. CONCLUSIONS: Although CAP has a higher burden of hospitalization and total costs than MI, stroke, and OF in the elderly population, prevention efforts were disproportionately smaller for CAP. Prioritization of CAP prevention is needed to substantially reduce the burden of CAP.

Ulcerative Colitis Treatment Patterns and Cost of Care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine treatment patterns, dosing, health care resource utilization, and cost of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX), among patients enrolled in US Humana insurance plans who have been diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified the first pharmacy or medical claim for ADA or IFX (from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014) in patients with continuous enrollment for 6 months or more preindex and 12 months or more postindex, with one or more UC diagnosis claim 6 months pre- or postindex. TNFi discontinuation was defined as a therapy gap of 56 days or more for ADA and 112 days or more for IFX. TNFi switch was defined as nonindex TNFi initiation. Health care resource utilization and costs were characterized quarterly according to treatment patterns. RESULTS: The study population comprised 295 patients: mean age 50.9 years, 50.5% females, and 61.7% in southern United States. At the index date, 17% of patients received ADA and 83% received IFX. Treatment discontinuation was observed in 52% of ADA and 45% of IFX users through 12 months postindex (mean time 19 and 22 weeks, respectively). Among discontinuers, 46% of ADA and 68% of IFX users did not restart/switch TNFi. ADA and IFX showed mean times to switch of 18 and 30 weeks, respectively. TNFi discontinuers had the lowest mean quarterly total health care cost ($3,935) versus patients who initiated/switched TNFi ($15,004). Nevertheless, discontinuers had higher UC-related hospitalization versus patients receiving therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of ADA and IFX users discontinued, with approximately half of discontinuers not restarting/switching therapies. Further investigation of treatment patterns and outcomes after TNFi discontinuation is required.

Opportunities and challenges in leveraging electronic health record data in oncology.

The widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and the growing wealth of digitized information sources about patients is ushering in an era of 'Big Data' that may revolutionize clinical research in oncology. Research will likely be more efficient and potentially more accurate than the current gold standard of manual chart review studies. However, EHRs as they exist today have significant limitations: important data elements are missing or are only captured in free text or PDF documents. Using two case studies, we illustrate the challenges of leveraging the data that are routinely collected by the healthcare system in EHRs (e.g., real-world data), specific challenges encountered in the cancer domain and opportunities that can be achieved when these are overcome.

Differences in healthcare utilization and associated costs between patients prescribed vs. nonprescribed opioids during an inpatient or emergency department visit.

OBJECTIVES: Compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between patients prescribed opioids (RxOP) and those who were not (NoRxOP) during an emergency department (ED) or inpatient visit. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis was performed (January 2006 to September 2010). Continuously eligible RxOP patients in ED/inpatient settings (January 2007 to September 2009) were included if age was ≥ 12 years by initial prescription date (or random date between first ED/inpatient admission and September 30, 2009 [NoRxOP patients]). Healthcare resource utilization and costs for 12 months after initial prescription were compared. Univariate descriptive analyses were performed for baseline and outcome variables and compared using appropriate tests. Risk adjustment compared HCRU between RxOP and NoRxOP cohorts for the postindex period. RESULTS: Of 27,599 eligible patients, RxOP patients (n = 18,819) were younger, less likely to be male, more likely to reside in southern United States and to have Preferred Provider Organization health plans, and had lower comorbidity index scores, compared with NoRxOP patients (n = 8,780). RxOP patients were less likely to have nonpain-related comorbidities and more frequently diagnosed with pain-related comorbidities. Unmatched and propensity-matched RxOP patients experienced higher HCRU and costs in all subcategories (total, inpatient, outpatient ED, physician, pharmacy, other outpatient settings). Opioid abuse frequency was low in patients with common diagnoses/procedures within 3 months before initial prescription (0.48%). Average time to abuse was < 1 year (201 days). CONCLUSION: Most patients were prescribed opioids initially during ED/inpatient visits and incurred higher HCRU than those not prescribed opioids. Among those with diagnosed opioid abuse after initiating opioids, time to diagnosis was rapid (range: 14 to 260 days) for patients with common diseases and procedures.

Performance evaluation of the LumiraDx quantitative microfluidic point-of-care CRP test.

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an established acute-phase marker for infection, inflammation and tissue injury, used to guide clinical decision-making in primary and secondary care. This study compared the analytical performance of the quantitative microfluidic point-of-care LumiraDx CRP Test to a laboratory-based reference method (Siemens RCRP Flex assay on the Dimension® Xpand®) and evaluated equivalence of sample matrices (blood versus plasma) in point-of-care settings using samples from patients presenting with symptoms of infection or inflammation. The LumiraDx CRP Test demonstrated close agreement with the lab reference test (range, 5.1 to 245.2 mg/L, r = 0.992, slope = 0.998, intercept = -0.476; n = 205) and notable agreement between fingerstick and venous blood and plasma (r = 0.974-0.983; n = 44). Paired replicate precision had mean coefficients of variation of 6.4 % (plasma), 6.6 % (capillary direct) and 8.1 % (venous blood); overall error rates were 2.9 %. The quantitative LumiraDx CRP Test showed robust analytical performance across sample matrices and close agreement compared to the laboratory reference method when used at the point of care.

Regulatory and HTA Considerations for Development of Real-World Data Derived External Controls.

Regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly familiar with, and publishing guidance on, external controls derived from real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE). We recently conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) evaluating publicly available information on the use of RWD-derived external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and/or select HTA bodies. The review identified several key operational and methodological aspects for which more detailed guidance and alignment within and between regulatory agencies and HTA bodies is necessary. This paper builds on the SLR findings by delineating a set of key takeaways for the responsible generation of fit-for-purpose RWE. Practical methodological and operational guidelines for designing, conducting, and reporting RWD-derived external control studies are explored and discussed. These considerations include: (i) early engagement with regulators and HTA bodies during the study planning phase; (ii) consideration of the appropriateness and comparability of external controls across multiple dimensions, including eligibility criteria, temporality, population representation, and clinical evaluation; (iii) ensuring adequate sample sizes, including hypothesis testing considerations; (iv) implementation of a clear and transparent strategy for assessing and addressing data quality, including data missingness across trials and RWD; (v) selection of comparable and meaningful endpoints that are operationalized and analyzed using appropriate analytic methods; and (vi) conduct of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings in the context of uncertainty and sources of potential bias.

Effectively Leveraging RWD for External Controls: A Systematic Literature Review of Regulatory and HTA Decisions.

Real-world data (RWD)-derived external controls can be used to contextualize efficacy findings for investigational therapies evaluated in uncontrolled trials. As the number of submissions to regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies using external controls rises, and in light of recent regulatory and HTA guidance on the appropriate use of RWD, there is a need to address the operational and methodological challenges impeding the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) generation and the consistency in evaluation of RWE across agencies. This systematic review summarizes publicly available information on the use of external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials for all indications from January 1, 2015, through August 20, 2021, that were submitted to the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and/or select major HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)). By systematically reviewing submissions to regulatory and HTA bodies in the context of recent guidance, this study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into how external control design and analytic choices may be viewed by different agencies in practice. The primary operational and methodological aspects identified for discussion include, but are not limited to, engagement of regulators and HTA bodies, approaches to handling missing data (a component of data quality), and selection of real-world endpoints. Continued collaboration and guidance to address these and other aspects will inform and assist stakeholders attempting to generate evidence using external controls.

Machine learning models for identifying predictors of clinical outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care as first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) without actionable oncogenic driver mutations. While clinical trials demonstrated benefits of ICIs over chemotherapy, variation in outcomes across patients has been observed and trial populations may not be representative of clinical practice. Predictive models can help understand heterogeneity of treatment effects, identify predictors of meaningful clinical outcomes, and may inform treatment decisions. We applied machine learning (ML)-based survival models to a real-world cohort of patients with aNSCLC who received 1L ICI therapy extracted from a US-based electronic health record database. Model performance was evaluated using metrics including concordance index (c-index), and we used explainability techniques to identify significant predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The ML model achieved c-indices of 0.672 and 0.612 for OS and PFS, respectively, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant differences between low- and high-risk groups for OS and PFS (both log-rank test p < 0.0001). Identified predictors were mostly consistent with the published literature and/or clinical expectations and largely overlapped for OS and PFS; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression levels, and serum albumin were among the top 5 predictors for both outcomes. Prospective and independent data set evaluation is required to confirm these results.

Characterizing the Shifting Real-World Treatment Landscape by PD-L1 Testing Status and Expression Level in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary real-world data on advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment patterns across programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels and testing status are limited. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was selected of adults newly diagnosed with aNSCLC between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2021, who initiated first-line treatments, which were described by PD-L1 status and expression levels (≥ 50%, 1-49%, < 1%). Treatment received before and after PD-L1 test results were described for patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results. For patients who initiated chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after PD-L1 results was estimated by PD-L1 level and associated factors were explored. RESULTS: Among 12,202 patients with aNSCLC initiating first-line treatment [54.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 69.2 (9.4) years], the most common therapies were ICI-based regimens across PD-L1 levels, and chemotherapy alone among PD-L1-untested patients. Use of chemotherapy alone decreased between 2018 and 2019 and stabilized thereafter, accounting for 21-29% of first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Of 1468 patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results, treatments remained unchanged in most patients after PD-L1 results. Among patients initiating chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving ICIs within 45 days after test results was 40.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.6-48.3%], 28.6% (95% CI 20.3-36.0%), and 22.9% (95% CI 16.9-28.4%) at PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 1-49%, and < 1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: While ICI-based regimens accounted for most first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels, chemotherapy alone was initiated in > 20% of patients tested for PD-L1 and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Patients who initiated chemotherapy alone had a low probability of receiving ICIs after PD-L1 test results. These results highlight the need for understanding the role and timing of PD-L1 test results for informing treatment decisions for patients with aNSCLC.

Real-World Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and High PD-L1 Expression Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as First-Line Therapy.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the US de-identified electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health aNSCLC database (January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2021) among patients with PD-L1 ≥50% initiating first-line ICIs with or without chemotherapy. A clinical trial-like sub-cohort was also identified with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, adequate organ function, and no brain metastases or other primary cancers. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) by ICI regimen (ICI+chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy) and PD-L1 expression (50-69%, 70-89%, 90-100%). Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between ICI regimen, PD-L1 level, and OS, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 2631 patients with aNSCLC initiating ICI+chemotherapy (n = 992) or ICI monotherapy (n = 1639) were included; median (Q1, Q3) age was 71 (63-78) years and 51.6% were male. The trial-like sub-cohort (n = 1029) generally had better outcomes vs. the overall cohort. Patients receiving ICI+chemotherapy generally had longer median OS vs. ICI monotherapy. Multivariable analyses showed no association between ICI regimen and OS among patients with PD-L1 70-89% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.09) or 90-100% (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.08), but patients with PD-L1 50-69% receiving ICI+chemotherapy had longer OS (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99). Conclusion: Outcomes in real-world clinical trial-like patients with aNSCLC approached those reported in pivotal ICI trials in high PD-L1 expressers. ICI monotherapy offers a potential alternative in patients with PD-L1 ≥70% while avoiding potential chemotherapy toxicity exposure; the benefits are less clear in patients with PD-L1 50-69%. Future studies should confirm these findings.

EMPOWER CERVICAL-1: Effects of cemiplimab versus chemotherapy on patient-reported quality of life, functioning and symptoms among women with recurrent cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III, randomised, active-controlled study (EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9; R2810-ONC-1676; NCT03257267) and cemiplimab significantly improved survival versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer who had progressed on platinum-based therapy. Here we report patient-reported outcomes in this pivotal study. METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or investigator's choice of chemotherapy in 6-week cycles. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 during cycles 1-16. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning (PF) were secondary end-points in the statistical hierarchy. RESULTS: Of 608 patients (304/arm), 77.8% patients had squamous cell carcinoma and 22.2% patients had adenocarcinoma. Questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% throughout. In the squamous cell carcinoma population, overall between-group differences statistically significantly favoured cemiplimab in GHS/QoL (8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.77-13.21; P = 0.0003) and PF (8.35; 95% CI: 4.08-12.62; P < 0.0001). Treatment differences favoured cemiplimab in both histologic populations by cycle 2. Overall changes from baseline in most functioning and symptom scales favoured cemiplimab, with clinically meaningful treatment differences in role functioning, appetite loss and pain in both populations. The sensitivity analyses, responder analyses and time to definitive deterioration favoured cemiplimab in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: Cemiplimab conferred favourable differences in GHS/QoL and PF compared with chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer, with benefits in PF by cycle 2, and clinically meaningful differences favouring cemiplimab in role functioning, appetite loss, and pain.

Real-world evaluation of health-care resource utilization and costs in employees with fibromyalgia treated with pregabalin or duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in health-care resource use and costs after initiating pregabalin or duloxetine in employees with fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: Employees (18 to 64 years old) with at least one claim for an FM-attributable medication within 60 days following an FM diagnosis were identified using the Thomson Reuters MarketScan(®) Commercial Database (2006 to 2008). Patients newly initiated on pregabalin were propensity score matched to patients newly initiated on duloxetine. These treatment cohorts were evaluated for changes between the 6-month pre- and post-initiation periods in health-care utilization including prescriptions, imputed medically related work loss and expenditures. Pre- to post-initiation changes were compared between pregabalin and duloxetine using a difference-in-difference approach based on univariate statistics and multivariable models. RESULTS: A total of 731 employees with FM initiated on pregabalin (89.9% female, mean age 47.1±9.7 years) were matched with 731 employees initiated on duloxetine (89.5% female, mean age 47.1±9.8 years); other demographic and clinical characteristics were also comparable between cohorts. The adjusted marginal effects were not statistically significant for pre- to post-changes in opioid utilization (P=0.856), number of FM-attributable (P=0.151) or FM-related medications (P=0.462), and all-cause (P=0.323) or FM-attributable (P=0.991) expenditures. Pregabalin was associated with a significantly lower probability of any medically related work loss of 3.2 percentage points (P=0.030) compared with duloxetine, but changes in indirect costs were not significantly different (P=0.600). CONCLUSIONS: The changes in health resource utilization and costs after initiation of pregabalin were not significantly different than the changes observed after initiation of duloxetine. These results not only demonstrate an overall similarity of resource utilization, but also suggest cost neutrality between pregabalin and duloxetine.

National audit of antidote stocking in UK emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Previous audits of antidote stocking in UK hospitals have demonstrated variable but improving compliance with joint Royal College of Emergency Medicine and National Poisons Information Service guidance on antidote availability in emergency departments. The guidance was updated in 2017. AIM: To provide a current picture of compliance with the 2017 antidote guidance and compare this to previous audits. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to all hospitals in the UK with an emergency department via medicines information and regional pharmacy procurement networks. Data were collected on availability and stock levels of category A (immediately available) and category B (available within 1 hour) antidotes. Additionally, data were collected on holdings of category C (held supra-regionally) antidotes and arrangements for sourcing these if not stocked locally. RESULTS: 233 hospitals were surveyed and 178 replies (76.4%) were received. There were 73 hospitals (41.7%) fully compliant with guidance for category A, 34 hospitals (19.1%) for category B and 18 hospitals (10.1%) for both categories A and B antidotes. Few hospitals stocked category C antidotes (1.1%-34.8%). Evidence of formalised regional holding arrangements for category C antidotes, as advised in the guidance, was noted in some areas but many regions remain without such agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals remain not fully compliant with stocking recommendations for categories A and B antidotes, with limited recent improvement. Category C antidotes are stocked by few hospitals although awareness of where these can be sourced appears to be increasing. Emergency departments should review their antidote stocking arrangements to ensure compliance with guidance. Formal arrangements for stocking of the more rarely used category C antidotes at a regional level are also required, where not already in existence, in order to assure their availability in an equitable way across the country.

Real-World Evidence to Contextualize Clinical Trial Results and Inform Regulatory Decisions: Tofacitinib Modified-Release Once-Daily vs Immediate-Release Twice-Daily for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To provide additional clinical evidence in regulatory submissions for a modified-release (MR) once-daily (QD) tofacitinib formulation, we compared real-world adherence and effectiveness between patients initiating the MR QD formulation and patients initiating an immediate-release (IR) twice-daily (BID) formulation. METHODS: Two noninterventional cohort studies were conducted. First, adherence and two effectiveness proxies were compared between patients with RA who newly initiated tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD or IR 5 mg BID in the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental US insurance claims databases (March 2016-October 2018). Second, using data collected in the Corrona US RA Registry (February 2016-August 2019), two Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-based measures of effectiveness were compared between tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID, and against noninferiority criteria derived from placebo-controlled clinical trials of the tofacitinib IR formulation. Multiple sensitivity analyses of the registry data were conducted to reassure regulators of consistent results across different assumptions. RESULTS: In each study, approximately two-thirds of patients initiated the MR formulation. In the claims database study, improved adherence and at least comparable effectiveness were observed with tofacitinib MR vs IR over 12 months, particularly in patients without prior advanced therapy. In the registry study, the noninferiority of tofacitinib MR vs IR was demonstrated for both CDAI outcomes at ~6 months; this finding was robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the value of real-world evidence from complementary data sources in understanding the impact of medication adherence with a QD formulation in clinical practice. These analyses were suitable for regulatory consideration as an important component of evidence for the comparability of tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD vs IR 5 mg BID in patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Claims database study: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04018001, retrospectively registered July 12, 2019. Corrona US RA Registry study: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04267380, retrospectively registered February 12, 2020.

Identifying fibromyalgia-associated symptoms and conditions from a clinical perspective: a step toward evaluating healthcare resource utilization in fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to determine from the physician's perspective, the conditions and symptoms most relevant to the diagnosis of fibromyalgia (FM) for identifying International Classification of Diseases-diagnosis codes and prescription medications to evaluate FM-related healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered using an online physician network (SERMO™) from which responses of 102 physicians were evaluated: anesthesiologists (n = 6), neurologists (n = 18), primary care physicians (n = 16), pain specialists (n = 16), psychiatrists (n = 15), and rheumatologists (n = 31). Physicians scored the relative importance to a diagnosis of FM (0 = least relevant/important, 10 = most relevant/important) of 24 conditions and symptoms derived from a list provided by the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases. Conditions and symptoms with mean scores ≥ 5 were considered the most relevant. Other survey questions included treatment goals, assessment of disease severity, medication use, and characterization of the physicians' experience and clinical practice. RESULTS: Ten conditions and symptoms (mean score) were reported as most relevant: Muscle pain (8.7), Fatigue/tiredness (8.5), Insomnia (8.0), Depression (7.8), Thinking/remembering (6.7), Nervousness (6.0), Muscle weakness (5.9), Headache (5.7), Irritable bowel syndrome (5.5), and Pain/cramps in abdomen (5.1). Treatment goals, severity assessment, and use of medications were generally similar across physician specialties. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identified 10 conditions and symptoms that physician respondents considered most relevant to a diagnosis of FM. Further evaluation to determine how these conditions and symptoms contribute to FM-associated healthcare resource utilization is warranted.