Tamer Garawin
Amgen
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Tamer Garawin.
Biomarkers in Medicine | 2017
George Kafatos; Daniela Niepel; Kimberley Lowe; Sophie Jenkins-Anderson; Hal Westhead; Tamer Garawin; Zuzana Traugottová; Antonios Bilalis; Edit Molnár; József Tímár; Erika Tóth; Nikolaos Gouvas; George Papaxoinis; Samuel Murray; Nadia Mokhtar; Hana Vosmikova; Pavel Fabian; A. Skálová; Piotr Wójcik; Andrzej Tysarowski; Mario Barugel; J. Han van Krieken; Jörg Trojan
Aim: A confirmed wild-type RAS tumor status is commonly required for prescribing anti-EGFR treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. This noninterventional, observational research project estimated RAS mutation prevalence from real-world sources. Materials & methods: Aggregate RAS mutation data were collected from 12 sources in three regions. Each source was analyzed separately; pooled prevalence estimates were then derived from meta-analyses. Results: The pooled RAS mutation prevalence from 4431 tumor samples tested for RAS mutation status was estimated to be 43.6% (95% CI: 38.8–48.5%); ranging from 33.7% (95% CI: 28.4–39.3%) to 54.1% (95% CI: 51.7–56.5%) between sources. Conclusion: The RAS mutation prevalence estimates varied among sources. The reasons for this are not clear and highlight the need for further research.
Journal of Medical Economics | 2018
Christopher N. Graham; Alexandra Christodoulopoulou; Hediyyih N. Knox; Lorenzo Sabatelli; Guy Hechmati; Tamer Garawin; John H. Strickler
Abstract Aims: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US
Current Medical Research and Opinion | 2018
Derek Weycker; Ahuva Hanau; Alexander Lonshteyn; Charles Bowers; Mark Bensink; Tamer Garawin; David Chandler
60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US
Current Medical Research and Opinion | 2018
Derek Weycker; Ahuva Hanau; Alexander Lonshteyn; Charles Bowers; Tamer Garawin; Mark Bensink; David Chandler
135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled. Limitations: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources. Conclusions: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.
Clinical Colorectal Cancer | 2017
Mario E. Lacouture; Milan J. Anadkat; Aminah Jatoi; Tamer Garawin; Chet Bohac; Edith P. Mitchell
Abstract Background: Two recent evaluations reported that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be higher when pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is administered on same day as chemotherapy rather than per recommendation (1–3 days following chemotherapy). Such evidence is based largely on the experience of younger privately insured adults and may not be generalizable to older patients in US clinical practice. Methods: A retrospective cohort design and data from Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (January 2008–September 2015) were employed. Patients were aged ≥65 years, had breast cancer or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, received chemotherapy with intermediate/high risk for FN, and received PP in ≥1 cycle; cycles with PP were stratified based on administration day (same-day [“Day 0”] vs. 1–3 days following chemotherapy [“Days 1–3”]) and were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on Day 0 versus Days 1–3. Results: Study population included 65,003 patients who received PP in 261,184 cycles; in 5% of cycles, patients received PP on Day 0. Incidence proportion for FN in cycle 1 was 11.4% for Day 0 versus 8.4% for Days 1–3; adjusted OR was 1.4 (p < .001). Incidence proportion for FN when considering all cycles was 7.7% for Day 0 and 6.0% for Days 1–3; adjusted OR was 1.3 (p < .001). Adjusted ORs when considering all cycles and only inpatient FN episodes (1.3, p < .001) and the narrow definition for FN (1.5, p < .001) were similar. Conclusions: Among Medicare patients receiving chemotherapy and PP in US clinical practice, PP was administered before the recommended timing in 5% of cycles and FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles. Along with prior research, study findings support recently updated US practice guidelines indicating that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2016
George Kafatos; Kimberly A. Lowe; Sophie Jenkins-Anderson; Tamer Garawin; Zuzana Traugottová; Antonios Bilalis; Edit Molnár; Karolina Wieruszewska-Kowalczyk; Daniela Niepel; J. Han van Krieken
Abstract Background: Two recent evaluations reported that many cancer chemotherapy patients discontinue pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) following the first cycle, and that these patients have a higher subsequent risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Such evidence is based principally on the experience of younger adults with private healthcare coverage, and the generalizability of results to elderly Medicare patients is unknown. Methods: A matched-cohort design and data from the Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files were employed. The source population comprised cancer patients aged ≥65 years who received chemotherapy with intermediate/high-risk for FN and first-cycle PP. From the source population, beginning with the second cycle, all patients who received PP in all previous cycles were identified. From this sub-set, patients who did not receive PP in the cycle of interest (“comparison patients”) were matched to those who received PP in that cycle (“PP patients”); the same process was repeated for subsequent cycles. Odds ratios (OR) for FN (broad and narrow definitions) were estimated using generalized estimating equations. Results: Among 77,616 elderly patients in the source population, 5.3% did not receive second-cycle PP and were matched to those who did. In cycle 2, FN odds were significantly higher among comparison patients vs PP patients when employing the broad definition (OR = 1.9, p < .001) and the narrow definition (OR = 2.1, p < .001). Results for subsequent cycles (broad definition: OR = 2.0, p < .001; narrow definition: OR = 2.1, p < .001) and for the last cycle (broad definition: OR = 1.4, p = .060; narrow definition: OR = 1.7, p = .055) were largely comparable. Conclusions: In this large-scale evaluation of elderly Medicare patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and first-cycle PP in recent US clinical practice, FN risk was substantially lower among patients who continued to receive PP in subsequent cycles vs those who discontinued PP.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2018
Shuling Li; Jiannong Liu; Charles Bowers; Tamer Garawin; Christopher Kim; Mark Bensink; David Chandler
Abstract Monoclonal antibody inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) without RAS gene mutations. However, treatment with anti‐EGFR agents can be associated with toxicities of the skin, nails, hair, and eyes. Because these dermatologic toxicities can result in treatment discontinuation and affect patient quality of life, their management is an important focus when administering anti‐EGFR monoclonal antibodies. The present systematic review describes the current data reporting the nature and incidence of, and management and treatment options for, dermatologic toxicities occurring during anti‐EGFR treatment of mCRC. A search of the National Library of Medicine PubMed database from January 1, 2009, to August 18, 2016, identified relevant reports discussing dermatologic toxicity management among patients with mCRC receiving anti‐EGFR therapy. The studies were grouped by type and rated by level of evidence using the GRADE approach developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Overall, 269 reports were reviewed (nonrandomized trials, n = 120; randomized trials, n = 31; retrospective studies, n = 15; reviews, n = 39). Dermatologic toxicity of any grade occurs in most patients who receive anti‐EGFR therapy; approximately 10% to 20% of patients experienced grade 3/4 toxicity. The most common dermatologic toxicities include papulopustular/acneiform rash, xerosis, and pruritus; however, nail changes, hair abnormalities, and ocular conditions also occur. Guidance for managing these toxicities includes the use of inexpensive emollient ointments and moisturizers, avoidance of sun exposure, avoidance of irritants, and the use of short showers. Several studies also found that preemptive treatment was more effective than reactive treatment at limiting the incidence and severity of skin toxicity. With appropriate treatment, the dermatologic toxicities associated with anti‐EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy can be managed, minimizing patient discomfort and the need for therapy interruption and/or discontinuation. Additionally, preemptive treatment can reduce dermatologic toxicity severity, ultimately yielding better quality of life.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2018
Lauren C. Bylsma; Christina Gillezeau; Tamer Garawin; Michael A. Kelsh; Jon P. Fryzek; Laura Sangaré; Kimberly A. Lowe
513 Background: Guidelines for prescribing anti-EGFR therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) require prior testing to confirm RAS (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) wild-type status in Europe and the USA. There is limited published evidence reporting the prevalence of RAS mutations in patients with mCRC in a real-world setting. The aim of this study was to use data from a range of real-world sources to obtain RAS mutation prevalence estimates for different geographic regions. Methods: Aggregated RAS mutation prevalence data were collected from 13 sources, including individual pathology centers (n = 7), mCRC registries (n = 3), and Amgen-sponsored studies (n = 3). Data sources included in this study originated in Europe (n = 10), the Middle East (n = 2), and South America (n = 1). A meta-analysis of all collected data was carried out to investigate the effect of heterogeneity amongst the data sources and obtain pooled RAS prevalence estimates for each, using a mixed regression model. Results: Aggrega...
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2018
Ana Florea; Tamer Garawin; Laura Sangaré; Michael A. Kelsh; Kimberly A. Lowe
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017
Kimberly Lowe; Kristina Hool; Tamer Garawin; Rachel Bergstresser; George Kafatos; Michelle McNamara; Seth Collins; Bruce A. Bach