Maureen P. Neary

Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer

BackgroundUnderstanding what constitutes an important difference on a HRQL measure is critical to its interpretation. The aim of this study was to provide a range of estimates of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D scores in cancer and to determine if estimates are comparable in lung cancer.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on cross-sectional data collected from 534 cancer patients, 50 of whom were lung cancer patients. A range of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D index-based utility (UK and US) scores and VAS scores were estimated using both anchor-based and distribution-based (1/2 standard deviation and standard error of the measure) approaches. Groups were anchored using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ratings and FACT-G total score-based quintiles.ResultsFor UK-utility scores, MID estimates based on PS ranged from 0.10 to 0.12 both for all cancers and for lung cancer subgroup. Using FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.09 to 0.10 for all cancers, and 0.07 to 0.08 for lung cancer. For US-utility scores, MIDs ranged from 0.07 to 0.09 grouped by PS for all cancers and for lung cancer; when based on FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.06 to 0.07 in all cancers and 0.05 to 0.06 in lung cancer. MIDs for VAS scores were similar for lung and all cancers, ranging from 8 to 12 (PS) and 7 to 10 (FACT-G quintiles).DiscussionImportant differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores were similar for all cancers and lung cancer, with the lower end of the range of estimates closer to the MID, i.e. 0.08 for UK-index scores, 0.06 for US-index scores, and 0.07 for VAS scores.

Angiogenesis inhibitor therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: effectiveness, safety and treatment patterns in clinical practice-based on medical chart review

Study Type – Symptom prevalence (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

Isotretinoin and antidepressant pharmacotherapy: a prescription sequence symmetry analysis.

BACKGROUND Isotretinoin is indicated for the treatment of severe, recalcitrant nodular acne. Spontaneous reports have suggested a possible association between isotretinoin and depression that has not been supported by prior studies. Depression has been reported in patients with acne and is common among adolescents. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to investigate whether there is an association between isotretinoin use and onset of depression. METHODS A large retrospective database study was performed through a review of pharmacy claims to evaluate the order of first-recorded isotretinoin and antidepressant dispensings in incident users. The study included 2821 patients, aged 12 to 49 years, who filled isotretinoin prescriptions between June 1, 1999, and March 31, 2000. The ratio of the number of patients who filled isotretinoin prescription first versus second was computed, with adjustment for variations in physician prescribing patterns; a ratio significantly greater than 1.0 indicates a depression-invoking relationship. Similar analyses of minocycline were performed. RESULTS Adjusted ratios for all antidepressants and by class were not significantly greater than 1.0. Similar results were found for minocycline. CONCLUSION The results do not support an association between the use of isotretinoin and the onset of depression.

The risk of renal impairment in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with bone metastases treated with zoledronic acid†

Bisphosphonates have been used to treat bone metastases in hormone‐refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), but certain agents have been associated with renal toxicity. For this observational study, the authors assessed the risk of renal impairment in patients with HRPC who received zoledronic acid from December 1999 to April 2005.

Elicitation of health state utilities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Abstract Objective: The aim of the study was to obtain United Kingdom societal preferences for receiving newly developed treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Health states were developed based on a literature review and in-depth interviews with clinical experts. These states described the burden of both stable and progressive disease, and a variety of commonly encountered toxicities associated with first-line therapies (fatigue, diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, mucositis, hand/foot syndrome, hypertension and anaemia). These states were further reviewed by additional clinicians and patients to ensure their validity. One hundred members of the general public rated the states using the time trade-off (TTO) methodology to determine health state utility. Results: Stable disease had a utility value of 0.795 whilst progressive disease demonstrated a significant decline with a value of 0.355. The range of toxicities showed a variable impact in line with their toxicity grading from fatigue grade I/II (0.751) to hand/foot syndrome grade III (0.469). Conclusions: This study highlights the burden associated with a number of common toxicities encountered with current first-line mRCC treatments. Practical constraints coupled with the societal nature of the valuation exercise limited the amount of direct involvement by patients. However, these utility values should better permit the consideration of toxicity profiles in establishing the cost-effectiveness of future treatments.

Risk of renal impairment after treatment with ibandronate versus zoledronic acid: a retrospective medical records review

PurposeThis retrospective study compared renal impairment rates in breast cancer, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer and non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with ibandronate or zoledronic acid.Study designMedical records in two German oncology clinics from May 2001 to March 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Creatinine measurements were analyzed from baseline (before bisphosphonate treatment) to last available measurement for each patient. The Cox proportional hazards model and the Andersen–Gill extension of the Cox model for multiple events analysis were used for multivariate analysis, which controlled for age, clinic site, primary cancer type, baseline SCr or GFR value, prior bisphosphonate use, concomitant use of drugs associated with acute renal failure, and renal-related comorbidities.ResultsOf 333 patients, 109 received ibandronate and 256 received zoledronic acid (32 patients had both drugs). Compared with ibandronate, the zoledronic acid group had a significantly better baseline renal function and fewer patients had a history of renal disease. Zoledronic acid treatment increased the relative risk (RR) and the incidence rate (IR) of renal impairment by ~1.5-fold in all assessed patients (all tumors) compared with ibandronate. Multivariate analysis found significantly higher hazards ratios for zoledronic acid over ibandronate (two to sixfold), after adjusting for differences in characteristics between the two treatment groups.ConclusionsIn this retrospective review, patients were significantly more likely to experience renal impairment with zoledronic acid than with ibandronate.

Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors treated with high dose octreotide-LAR: A systematic literature review

AIM To review literature on efficacy and safety of octreotide-long-acting repeatable (LAR) used at doses higher than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved 30 mg/mo for treatment of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). METHODS We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library from 1998-2012, 5 conferences (American Society of Clinical Oncology, Endocrine Society, European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, European Society for Medical Oncology, North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society) from 2000-2013 using MeSH and keyterms including neuroendocrine tumors, carcinoid tumor, carcinoma, neuroendocrine, and octreotide. Bibliographies of accepted articles were also searched. Two reviewers reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-length articles. Studies that reported data on efficacy and safety of ≥ 30 mg/mo octreotide-LAR for NETs in human subjects, published in any language were included in the review. RESULTS The search identified 1086 publications, of which 238 underwent full-text review (20 were translated into English); 17 were included in the review. Studies varied in designs, subjects, octreotide-LAR regimens, and definition of outcomes. Eleven studies reported use of higher doses to control symptoms and tumor progression, although symptom severity and formal quality-of-life analysis were not quantitatively measured. Ten studies reported efficacy, describing 260 subjects with doses ranging from 40 mg/mo or 30 mg/3 wk up to 120 mg/mo. Eight studies reported expert clinical opinion that supported dose escalation of octreotide-LAR up to 60 mg/mo for symptom control and suggested increased doses may be effective at preventing tumor progression. Eight studies reported safety; there was no evidence of increased toxicity associated with doses of octreotide-LAR > 30 mg/mo. CONCLUSION As reported in this review, octreotide-LAR at doses > 30 mg/mo is being prescribed for symptom and tumor control in NET patients. Furthermore, expert clinical opinion provided support for escalation of somatostatin analogs for refractory hormonal symptoms.

Safety and treatment patterns of multikinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma at a tertiary oncology center in Italy

BackgroundMultikinase inhibitors (MKIs) sunitinib and sorafenib have become a standard of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study assessed safety and treatment patterns for these agents in a real-world clinical practice setting in Italy.MethodsA retrospective medical record review was performed at a tertiary oncology center in Italy. The study included MKI-naïve non-trial patients ≥18 years old, with a histological diagnosis of mRCC, and who received sunitinib or sorafenib as first MKI during 9/2005-7/2008. Data were collected on adverse events (AEs), treatment modifications (discontinuations, interruptions, dose changes), and reasons for these modifications.Results145 patients were included; 85 received sunitinib and 60 received sorafenib as first-line MKI. Median treatment duration was 6.6 (sunitinib) and 5.8 (sorafenib) months. 97.6% and 70.0% of patients receiving sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, experienced ≥1 AE; 27.1% and 31.7% had ≥1 grade 3/4 AE. The most common any grade AE for sunitinib was fatigue/asthenia (81.2%), followed by mucositis/stomatitis (58.8%) and decreased taste sensation (42.4%), while for sorafenib this was fatigue/asthenia (43.3%) followed by hand-foot syndrome (38.3%) and diarrhea (31.7%). Treatment discontinuation, interruption, and dose reduction due to AEs occurred in 11.8%, 23.5%, and 30.6%, respectively, of patients receiving sunitinib, and 5.0%, 23.3%, and 36.7%, respectively, of patients receiving sorafenib.ConclusionsIn this retrospective study, most patients experienced ≥1 AE during first-line MKI treatment. AEs were reported frequently and resulted in treatment modifications in 40% of patients receiving sunitinib and 45% of patients receiving sorafenib. These results suggest a need for additional effective and more tolerable treatments for mRCC.

Cost-effectiveness of oral ibandronate compared with intravenous (i.v.) zoledronic acid or i.v. generic pamidronate in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease undergoing i.v. chemotherapy

BackgroundIbandronate is the first third-generation bisphosphonate to have both oral and intravenous (i.v.) efficacy. An incremental cost-effectiveness model compared oral ibandronate with i.v. zoledronic acid and i.v. generic pamidronate in female breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease, undergoing i.v. chemotherapy.MethodsA global economic model was adapted to the UK National Health Service (NHS), with primary outcomes of direct healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Efficacy, measured as relative risk reduction of skeletal-related events (SREs), was obtained from clinical trials. Resource use data for i.v. bisphosphonates and the cost of managing SREs were obtained from published studies. Hospital management and SRE treatment costs were taken from unit cost databases. Monthly drug acquisition costs were obtained from the British National Formulary. Utility scores were applied to time with/without an SRE to adjust survival for quality of life. Model design and inputs were validated through expert UK clinician review.ResultsTotal cost, including drug acquisition, was £386 less per patient with oral ibandronate vs. i.v. zoledronic acid and £224 less vs. i.v. generic pamidronate. Oral ibandronate gained 0.019 and 0.02 QALYs vs. i.v. zoledronic acid and i.v. pamidronate, respectively, making it the economically dominant option. At a threshold of £30,000 per QALY, oral ibandronate was cost-effective vs. zoledronic acid in 85% of simulations and vs. pamidronate in 79%.ConclusionsOral ibandronate is a cost-effective treatment for metastatic bone disease from breast cancer due to reduced SREs, bone pain, and cost savings from avoidance of resource use commonly associated with bisphosphonate infusions.

Impact of adverse events, treatment modifications, and dose intensity on survival among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line sunitinib: a medical chart review across ten centers in five European countries

Angiogenesis inhibitors have become standard of care for advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but data on the impact of adverse events (AEs) and treatment modifications associated with these agents are limited. Medical records were abstracted at 10 tertiary oncology centers in Europe for 291 patients ≥18 years old treated with sunitinib as first‐line treatment for advanced RCC (no prior systemic treatment for advanced disease). Logistic regression models were estimated to compare dose intensity among patients who did and did not experience AEs during the landmark periods (18, 24, and 30 weeks). Cox proportional hazard models were used to explore the possible relationship of low‐dose intensity (defined using thresholds of 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9) and treatment modifications during the landmark periods to survival. 64.4% to 67.9% of patients treated with sunitinib reported at least one AE of any grade, and approximately 10% of patients experienced at least one severe (grade 3 or 4) AE. Patients reporting severe AEs were statistically significantly more likely to have dose intensities below either 0.8 or 0.9. Dose intensity below 0.7 and dose discontinuation during all landmark periods were statistically significantly associated with shorter survival time. This study of advanced RCC patients treated with sunitinib in Europe found a significant relationship between AEs and dose intensity. It also found correlations between dose intensity and shorter survival, and between dose discontinuation and shorter survival. These results confirm the importance of tolerable treatment and maintaining dose intensity.