G. Cuyun Carter

A review of treatment response in type 2 diabetes: assessing the role of patient heterogeneity.

The response to treatment for type 2 diabetes typically varies among individuals within a study population. This variation is known as heterogeneity of treatment response. We conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify factors that account for heterogeneity of treatment response in patients treated for type 2 diabetes. Three databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched for articles published in the last 10 years describing investigations of factors associated with treatment response and outcomes among people with type 2 diabetes receiving pharmacological treatment. Of the 43 articles extracted and summarized, 35 (81%) discussed clinical factors, 31 (72%) described sociodemographic factors and 17 (40%) reported on comorbidity or behavioural factors. Clinical factors identified included baseline glycated hemoglobin A1c or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, insulin response or sensitivity, C‐peptide, body composition, adipose tissue proteins, lipid profile, plasma albumin levels and duration of disease or insulin treatment. Other factors identified included age, sex, race, socioeconomic status and comorbidities. This review identified the following research gaps: use of multiple definitions for response, few patient‐reported measures and lack of evidence regarding whether factors were associated with treatment response for only specific medications or across pharmacological therapies. Furthermore, identification of factors associated with type 2 diabetes treatment response was generally a secondary objective in the research reviewed. Understanding which patient subgroups are more likely to respond to treatment and identifying factors associated with response may result in targeted treatment decisions and alter the interpretation of efficacy or effectiveness of results. In conclusion, accounting for these factors in clinical trials and when making clinical treatment decisions may improve therapy selection and individual patient outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness In The Second-Line Treatment Of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (Nsclc) In The Us:

• Lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed malignancy in the U.S. – 221,200 new cases of lung cancer are projected to occur in 2015 (Siegel et al., 2015) • Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. – Cause of more deaths annually than prostate, breast, colon, and pancreatic cancers combined • An estimated 83% of all lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) – Approximately 30% of cancers are categorized as squamous, which is associated with lower survival outcomes than nonsquamous NSCLC • The majority of NSCLC patients present with advanced disease, which has poor prognosis – The 5-year survival for metastatic disease is less than 5% (SEER) • The standard treatment for initial therapy of advanced disease involves platinum-based therapy – Pemetrexed and bevacizumab have shown to improve survival outcomes when added to a first-line platinum-based regimen for patients with non-squamous NSCLC • Patients with advanced disease well enough for treatment will require additional therapy as the disease progresses Table 1. Cost Inputs RESULTS

1266PQUALITY OF LIFE (QOL) RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 REVEL STUDY OF RAMUCIRUMAB + DOCETAXEL (RAM + DTX) VERSUS PLACEBO + DOCETAXEL (PL + DTX) IN ADVANCED/METASTATIC NSCLC PATIENTS (PTS) WITH PROGRESSION AFTER PLATINUM BASED CHEMOTHERAPY

ABSTRACT Aim: RAM + DTX significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival in pts with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with progression after platinum based chemotherapy. QoL data was obtained. Methods: Lung cancer symptom scale (LCSS) includes 6 symptom questions (loss of appetite, fatigue, cough, dyspnea, hemoptysis, pain) and 3 global items (symptom distress, difficulties with daily activities, global QoL) measured on a 0-100 mm scale, with higher scores representing greater symptom burden. LCSS and ECOG performance status (PS) data were collected at baseline (BL), every cycle, and at 30-day follow up (FU). LCSS total score and average symptom burden index (ASBI) were calculated. The primary prespecified analysis was time to deterioration (TtD) of the LCSS defined as increase from BL by ≥15 mm using the Kaplan-Meier method. TtD to PS ≥ 2 was also analysed. Results: Of the 1253 pts randomized to receive RAM + DTX or PL + DTX, 66.6% were male, median age was 62, and 67.4% had PS1. Pt compliance with LCSS was approximately 75% and balanced across both arms. The mean BL LCSS total score was 27.3 (SD 17.08) and 29.6 (SD 17.59) on RAM + DTX and PL + DTX, respectively. During treatment, the symptom burden appeared similar between treatment arms. At 30-day FU, mean total LCSS score was 32.0 (SD 19.03) and 32.5 (SD 19.87) on RAM + DTX and PL + DTX, respectively, reflecting a similar increase in symptom burden for both arms (mean increase of 5.4 and 6.0 from BL, respectively). The TtD for all LCSS scores was similar between treatment arms. Stratified HRs (95% CI) for LCSS total score and ASBI were HR = 0.99 (0.81, 1.22), p = 0.932 and HR = 0.93 (0.75, 1.15), p = 0.514 with approximately 70% of pts censored. TtD to PS ≥ 2 was similar between treatment arms (HR = 1.03; [95% CI: 0.85, 1.26], p = 0.742) with approximately two-thirds of the pts censored. Conclusions: In addition to the improvement of clinical outcomes demonstrated in REVEL, the primary QoL analyses suggest that there was no detriment in QoL and pt functioning by adding RAM to DTX second line chemotherapy. Disclosure: K. Park: Advisor - AVEO, Astellas, BI, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Roche; M. Thomas: I Receive speakers and AD-Board Honoraria from Lilly Roche BMS AD-Board Honoraria from AstraZeneca Novartis Pierre Fabre; S. Yurasov: I am a full time employee of Ely Lilly & Co. the Sponsor of this clinical study; A. Zimmermann: I am an employee of Eli Lilly and do own stock in Lilly; G. Cuyun Carter: Employee and stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company; M. Reck: Member of Adboard (compensated): Hoffmann-La Roche, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca Honoraria for lectures: Hoffmann-La Roche Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca; M. Perol: Advisory Board for Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.