Drug Benefit Research Articles

Platelet hyperresponsiveness and increased platelet-neutrophil aggregates in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease and pulmonary hypertension.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) is caused by increased pulmonary venous pressure. Thrombosis, vascular remodeling, and vasoconstriction mediated by platelets could exacerbate PH. Dogs with PH will exhibit a hypercoagulable state, characterized by increased platelet activation, platelet-leukocyte, and platelet-neutrophil aggregate formation. Eleven dogs (≥3.5 kg) diagnosed with MMVD and PH and 10 dogs with MMVD lacking PH. Prospective cohort ex vivo study. All dogs underwent echocardiographic examination, CBC, 3-view thoracic radiographs, and heartworm antigen testing. Severity of PH and MMVD were assessed by echocardiography. Viscoelastic monitoring of coagulation was assessed using thromboelastography (TEG). Platelet activation and platelet-leukocyte/platelet-neutrophil interactions were assessed using flow cytometry. Plasma serotonin concentrations were measured by ELISA. Unstimulated platelets from dogs with MMVD and PH expressed more surface P-selectin than MMVD controls (P = .03). Platelets from dogs with MMVD and PH had persistent activation in response to agonists. The number of platelet-leukocyte aggregates was higher in dogs with MMVD and PH compared with MMVD controls (P = .01). Ex vivo stimulation of whole blood resulted in higher numbers of platelet-neutrophil aggregates in dogs with MMVD and PH (P = .01). Assessment of hypercoagulability based on TEG or plasma serotonin concentrations did not differ between groups. Platelet hyperresponsiveness and increased platelet-neutrophil interaction occur in dogs with MMVD and PH, suggesting that platelets play a role of in the pathogenesis of PH. Clinical benefits of antiplatelet drugs in dogs with MMVD and PH require further investigation.

Association between oral targeted cancer drug net health benefit, uptake, and spending.

Targeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide deidentified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication. We included 8524 patients with incident claims for 8 oral TCDs with 9 first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (interquartile range [IQR] = $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10 118.79 (IQR = $6365.95-$10 600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% confidence interval = $1050.27 to $1116.84, P < .01 for null hypothesis H0 = $0). Low-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.

Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of immature survival data: a retrospective analysis

New cancer drugs can be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of surrogate endpoints while data on overall survival are still incomplete or immature, with too few deaths for meaningful analysis. We aimed to evaluate whether clinical trials with immature survival data generated evidence of overall survival benefit during the period after marketing authorisation, and where that evidence was reported. In this retrospective analysis, we searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drug indications approved between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2018, on the basis of immature survival data. We systematically collected publicly available data on postapproval overall survival results in labelling (Drugs@FDA), journal publications (MEDLINE via PubMed), and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov). The primary outcome was availability of statistically significant overall survival benefits during the period after marketing authorisation (until March 31, 2023). Additionally, we evaluated the availability and timing of overall survival findings in labelling, journal publications, and ClinicalTrials.gov records. During the study period, the FDA granted marketing authorisation to 223 cancer drug indications, 95 of which had overall survival as an endpoint. 39 (41%) of these 95 indications had immature survival data. After a minimum of 4·3 years of follow-up during the period after marketing authorisation (and median 8·2 years [IQR 5·3-12·0] since FDA approval), additional survival data from the pivotal trials became available in either revised labelling or publications, or both, for 38 (97%) of 39 indications. Additional data on overall survival showed a statistically significant benefit in 12 (32%) of 38 indications, whereas mature data yielded statistically non-significant overall survival findings for 24 (63%) indications. Statistically significant evidence of overall survival benefit was reported in either labelling or publications a median of 1·5 years (IQR 0·8-2·3) after initial approval. The median time to availability of statistically non-significant overall survival results was 3·3 years (2·2-4·5). The availability of overall survival results on ClinicalTrials.gov varied considerably. Fewer than a third of indications approved with immature survival data showed a statistically significant overall survival benefit after approval. Notable inconsistencies in timing and availability of information after approval across different sources emphasise the need for better reporting standards. None.

Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

BackgroundAntidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered.MethodsWe used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1–3 = not necessary; 4–6 = uncertain; 7–9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted.ResultsThe expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia.ConclusionsExplicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

A cost effectiveness analysis of two treatment strategies for trigeminal neuralgia in Ontario.

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a debilitating disease with an annual incidence of approximately 4-27/100,000. In Ontario, over 2000 patients receive interventions for profound pain, including medical and surgical therapies. The global expected cost of these approaches is unknown. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of one surgical therapy, microvascular decompression (MVD), compared with the best medical therapy (carbamazepine) as first-line therapy. Costs were gathered from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, and Ontario Ministry of Health Schedule of Benefits for Physician Services. Academic literature was used to estimate unavailable items. A cost-benefit Markov model was created for each strategy with literature-based rates for annual cycles from years 1 to 5, followed by a linear recurrent cycle from years 6 to 10. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on the incremental cost in 2022 Canadian Dollars (CAD) per pain-free year. Base case cost per patient was $10,866 at 10 years in the "MVD first" group and $10,710 in the "carbamazepine first" group. Ten-year ICER was $1,104 for "MVD first," with strict superiority beyond this time point. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis for multiple factors suggested the highest cost variability and ICER variability were due to surgery cost, medication failure rate, and medication cost. Economic benefit is established for a "MVD first" strategy in the Ontario context with strict superiority beyond the 10-year horizon. If a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per pain-controlled year is used, the benefit is established at 4 years.

Conveying Risks of Harm in Alzheimer Disease by Amyloid Lowering

This Viewpoint discusses how data gaps in published research impede clinicians’ ability to clearly discuss the risks and benefits of amyloid-lowering drugs for treating Alzheimer disease.

The Health Costs of Cost Sharing.

What happens when patients suddenly stop their medications? We study the health consequences of drug interruptions caused by large, abrupt, and arbitrary changes in price. Medicare's prescription drug benefit as-if-randomly assigns 65-year-olds a drug budget as a function of their birth month, beyond which out-of-pocket costs suddenly increase. Those facing smaller budgets consume fewer drugs and die more: mortality increases 0.0164 percentage points per month (13.9%) for each $100 per month budget decrease (24.4%). This estimate is robust to a range of falsification checks and lies in the 97.8th percentile of 544 placebo estimates from similar populations that lack the same idiosyncratic budget policy. Several facts help make sense of this large effect. First, patients stop taking drugs that are both high value and suspected to cause life-threatening withdrawal syndromes when stopped. Second, using machine learning, we identify patients at the highest risk of drug-preventable adverse events. Contrary to the predictions of standard economic models, high-risk patients (e.g., those most likely to have a heart attack) cut back more than low-risk patients on exactly those drugs that would benefit them the most (e.g., statins). Finally, patients appear unaware of these risks. In a survey of 65-year-olds, only one-third believe that stopping their drugs for up to a month could have any serious consequences. We conclude that far from curbing waste, cost sharing is itself highly inefficient, resulting in missed opportunities to buy health at very low cost ($11,321 per life-year).

Abstract PO1-28-09: Rethinking the value of pathologic complete response rate for the survival outcomes of early triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been more frequently used in breast cancer, but it’s controversial whether NACT or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is more effective in improving survival outcomes for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Recent studies also proposed pathologic complete response (pCR) could not be a robust surrogate for survival outcomes in certain types of breast cancer. To address these questions, a general meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the survival outcomes of patients with pCR, non-pCR after NACT and ACT. The cut-off pCR rate was also declared to indicate when NACT produces equivalent survival outcomes to ACT (Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022336732). Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane library were searched up to June 2023 to investigate studies comparing NACT and ACT, as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different regimens in NACT or ACT settings in early operable TNBC patients. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ² based Q-test and I², combined with hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed for overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS, or event-free survival). The NMA with a Bayesian framework was conducted using both random and fixed effect model. The Weighted Least Square method and the Least Absolutely Deviation method were used to determine the cut-off pCR rates of OS and DFS. Results: A total of 35 studies involving 21 RCTs and 34143 TNBC patients were included. The general meta-analysis comprised 14 cohort studies. Eight high-quality cohort studies with propensity score matching and 21 RCTs were included in NMA. The pooled pCR rate for NACT was 42.2% (95% CI 37.8%-46.8%). Overall, the NACT cohort showed significantly worse OS and DFS than ACT cohort (HR=1.67, 95% CI 1.22-2.31; HR=1.37, 95% CI 1.14-1.64). However, patients with pCR after NACT showed improved OS than ACT (HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.66), while the patients without pCR after NACT had pooper OS than ACT (HR=2.03, 95% CI 1.88-2.19). As for DFS, there was no statistically difference between pCR after NACT and ACT groups (HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.63-1.73), while patients without pCR after NACT had significantly worse DFS than ACT (HR=2.65, 95% CI 1.98-3.55). From the NMA, the OS and DFS were better when combining modern target therapy such as Bevacizumab, PARPi, and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor (Figure 1), but not achieving pCR completely negated the benefits of newer drugs. Adding adjuvant capecitabine to patients not achieving pCR seemed to favor the OS. It was predicted that when the pCR rates were 64.7% and 46.9% (Figure 2), respectively, the OS and DFS of patients treated with NACT would be the same as those of patients treated with ACT. Conclusions: Higher pCR rate after NACT was associated with improved OS compared with ACT in TNBC patients. However, failure to achieve pCR after NACT resulted in worse survival outcomes than ACT. NACT had similar survival outcomes with ACT only when the pCR rate was at least 46.9%. The development of effective NACT regimens is beneficial for breast cancer patients. Figure 1. Forest plot of the Hazard Ratio for OS and DFS in TNBC patients pCR: pathological complete response; Bev: Bevacizumab; Pt: platinum; NACT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy; ACT: adjuvant chemotherapy; vel: veliparib; PDi:PD1/PDL1 inhibitor; X: capecitabine Figure 2. The cut-off value of pCR when NACT and ACT have the same Hazard Ratio based on OS and DFS. pCR: pathological complete response; Bev: Bevacizumab; Pt: platinum; NACT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy; ACT: adjuvant chemotherapy Citation Format: Xiaoying Qiao, Shu Wang, Taobo Hu, Baosheng Liang. Rethinking the value of pathologic complete response rate for the survival outcomes of early triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-28-09.

Abstract PO5-03-05: Rethinking the value of pathologic complete response rate for the survival outcomes of early triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been more frequently used in breast cancer, but it’s controversial whether NACT or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is more effective in improving survival outcomes for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Recent studies also proposed pathologic complete response (pCR) could not be a robust surrogate for survival outcomes in certain types of breast cancer. To address these questions, a general meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the survival outcomes of patients with pCR, non-pCR after NACT and ACT. The cut-off pCR rate was also declared to indicate when NACT produces equivalent survival outcomes to ACT (Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022336732). Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane library were searched up to June 2023 to investigate studies comparing NACT and ACT, as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different regimens in NACT or ACT settingsin early operable TNBC patients. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ² based Q-test and I², combined with hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed for overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS, or event-free survival). The NMA with a Bayesian framework was conducted using both random and fixed effect model. The Weighted Least Square method and the Least Absolutely Deviation method were used to determine the cut-off pCR rates of OS and DFS. Results: A total of 35 studies involving 21 RCTs and 34143 TNBC patients were included. The general meta-analysis comprised 14 cohort studies. Eight high-quality cohort studies with propensity score matching and 21 RCTs were included in NMA. The pooled pCR rate for NACT was 42.2% (95% CI 37.8%-46.8%). Overall, the NACT cohort showed significantly worse OS and DFS than ACT cohort (HR=1.67, 95% CI 1.22-2.31; HR=1.37, 95% CI 1.14-1.64). However, patients with pCR after NACT showed improved OS than ACT (HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.66), while the patients without pCR after NACT had pooper OS than ACT (HR=2.03, 95% CI 1.88-2.19). As for DFS, there was no statistically difference between pCR after NACT and ACT groups (HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.63-1.73), while patients without pCR after NACT had significantly worse DFS than ACT (HR=2.65, 95% CI 1.98-3.55). From the NMA, the OS and DFS were better when combining modern target therapy such as Bevacizumab, PARPi, and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor, but not achieving pCR completely negated the benefits of newer drugs. Adding adjuvant capecitabine to patients not achieving pCR seemed to favor the OS. It was predicted that when the pCR rates were 64.7% and 44.6%, respectively, the OS and DFS of patients treated with NACT would be the same as those of patients treated with ACT. Conclusions: Higher pCR rate after NACT was associated with improved OS compared with ACT in TNBC patients. However, failure to achieve pCR after NACT resulted in worse survival outcomes than ACT. NACT had similar survival outcomes with ACT only when the pCR rate was at least 44.6%. The development of effective NACT regimens is beneficial for breast cancer patients. Citation Format: Xiaoying Qiao, Taobo Hu, Baosheng Liang, Shu Wang. Rethinking the value of pathologic complete response rate for the survival outcomes of early triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-03-05.

Abstract PO5-10-08: Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies Recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for Advanced Breast Cancer

Abstract Background: Genomic testing has expanded the possibilities of precision cancer medicine, particularly for advanced, treatment-resistant breast cancer cases. However, the clinical significance of most genetic alterations remains uncertain, potentially overestimating tailored therapies. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are evidence-based cancer-specific recommendations used in clinical practice and that are often determinative for insurance coverage. In this study, we assessed the validity of the targets and the clinical benefit of genome-targeted cancer drugs recommended in the NCCN guidelines for metastatic breast cancer. Methods: We identified genome-targeted oncology therapies supporting advanced breast cancer recommendations in the most recent NCCN breast cancer guideline (version 4.2023). Genome-targeted drugs were defined as involving use of a genomic test in which the drug targeted a genomic alteration. We analyzed data from trials supporting advanced genome-targeted breast cancer drugs recommendations. When multiple (or overlapping) articles for the same study were identified, the most recent publication was included. We extracted key details of each trial, including trial design, blinding, phase of clinical trial and primary efficacy end points. We cross-referenced the FDA-approved indications as of 30 June 2023 with the NCCN recommendations for each drug. Strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for genome-targeted oncology therapies was assessed using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We considered a substantial clinical benefit as a grade of 4 or 5. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-targeted breast cancer treatments. Results: We identified 47 recommendations supporting 17 genome-targeted drugs, which targeted 11 driver alterations. Out of these recommendations, 29 (62%) aligned with the FDA indications. We associated 47 trials with these recommendations, most randomized (24, 51%), phase 3 (23, 49%) and open-label (42, 89%). The most common primary endpoint (22, 47%) was overall response rate, followed by progression-free survival/time to progression (21, 45%). Twenty-four trials (51%) had a I-A ESCAT targetability, 7 (15%) had a I-B targetability, 6 (13%) had a I-C targetability score and 10 (21%) were categorized as II-B. ERBB2 amplification, germline BRCA1/2 mutations, PIK3CA mutations, and ESR1 mutation were mainly classified as tier I-A based on randomized trials demonstrating the effectiveness of approved targeted therapies in patients with these alterations. By contrast, RET fusions, NTRK fusions, high-tumor mutational burden and microsatellite instability were ranked as tier I-C and somatic BRCA mutations, germline PALB2 mutations and HER-2 mutations as II-B. Six trials (14%, 6/42) supporting drug approval demonstrated substantial ESMO-MCBS clinical benefit. Overall, 6 recommendations (14%) had high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Conclusions: Fewer than one-fifth of molecular-targeted cancer therapies recommended in NCCN guidelines for metastatic breast cancer demonstrated substantial patient benefits. Value frameworks like ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS can help stakeholders identify therapies with the greatest potential. Citation Format: Ariadna Tibau, Thomas J. Hwang, Jerry Avorn, Aaron Kesselheim. Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies Recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for Advanced Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-10-08.

Recent advances in cardiology – Hot trials from the American Heart Association Annual Scientific Meeting 2023

ABSTRACT Cardiovascular (CV) diseases are the leading causes of death worldwide in both sexes alike. However, there have been significant developments in CV pharmacotherapy, percutaneous intervention, and systems of care over the past three decades in parallel. Several landmark studies were presented and discussed in American Heart Association (AHA) 2023 Scientific Sessions held in Philadelphia. The dapagliflozin-myocardial infarction (MI) and SELECT discussed the CV benefits of newer antidiabetic drugs. The AZALEA-TIMI and ARTESIA evaluated newer anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation. VERVE-101 and LEPODISIRAN studies were related to lipid-lowering in clinical practice. The ESPRIT trial demonstrated the benefits of intensive blood lowering, while KARDIA-1 tested a new RNA-based therapeutic agent for blood pressure lowering. The MINT trial evaluated strategies for blood transfusion in anemia concomitant with acute MI. ORBITA-2 study demonstrated the positive impact of percutaneous coronary intervention for angina control in stable coronary artery disease. Hence, these studies encompassed almost all aspects of cardiology, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, lipidology, anticoagulation, hypertension, obesity, and coronary intervention.

Improvements in the health-related quality-of-life benefit of cancer drugs approved in China, 2005–2020: an observational study

BackgroundHealth-related quality of life (HRQoL), along with overall survival (OS), is a critical study endpoint for measuring the clinical benefits of cancer drugs. Previous studies have examined the OS benefit of new cancer drugs approved in China. However, their HRQoL benefits have not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to characterise the measurement and improvement of HRQoL associated with cancer drugs approved in China. MethodsThis mixed-methods study comprises of a literature review and a cross-sectional study, including all antineoplastic agents approved in China between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2020. A systematic search was conducted on December 31, 2023 to extract HRQoL information of identified drugs. We extracted information on the characteristics of HRQoL assessment and statistically significant HRQoL gains compared with the control treatment. FindingsA total of 64 novel cancer drugs, corresponding to 115 cancer indications, supported by randomised clinical trials were approved in China between 2005 and 2020. Among the indications, 78 (67·8%) used HRQoL as an endpoint in the pivotal trial. By December 31, 2023, after a median follow-up of 5·3 (range, 3·0-18·8) years from approval, HRQoL information was available for more than half of the indications (75, 65·2%). Thirty-three indications (28·7%) reported statistically significant improvement in HRQoL, with 22 (19·1%) also having documented OS benefit. Approximately one-third of the indications (39, 33·9%) showed no difference in HRQoL, with 21 (18·3%) having documented OS gains. Three indications (2·6%) reported worsening HRQoL. The most commonly used HRQoL measurements were individual disease-specific instruments (62 of 75, 82·7%) while the most frequently employed analysis metric was the mean change scores from baseline (56 of 75, 74·7%). InterpretationFewer than one-third of cancer indications approved in China had shown HRQoL improvements. There was considerable heterogeneity in the analysis and reporting of HRQoL benefits associated with new cancer drugs approved in China. These findings emphasise the important role of HRQoL evaluation and analysis in clinical research and the necessity of improving the standardization of HRQoL assessment. FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China (72274004)

Fair Balance of Prescription Drug Information on Legitimate and Illegitimate Online Pharmacy Websites.

Patients require important information when prescribed medications. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that promotional information includes a fair balance of risks and benefits. This study evaluates how well legitimate online pharmacies (LOPs) and illegitimate online pharmacies (IOPs) comply with the spirit of the FDA's fair balance guidelines by examining the extent and equivalence of risk and benefit information on their websites. This study analyzed the content of 307 online pharmacy websites. Most (90.3%) communicated drug benefits, while 84.7% provided risks. Both risk and benefit information was moderately extensive. Presentation of risks and benefits differed between online pharmacy types. Compared to LOPs, IOPs were more likely to present risk information but also exaggerate benefits. Four in ten online pharmacies presented a fair balance of risks and benefits. However, LOPs (47.4%) were more likely to present a fair balance than IOPs (36.5%). Interestingly, IOPs were more likely to disclose instructions for use and overdose information than LOPs. These findings underscore the need for regulatory guidelines to encourage online pharmacies to present a fair balance of benefit and risk information. Also, pharmacists should develop online approaches to better fulfill their professional responsibility as drug information providers while maintaining their integrity and objectivity.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

On-time denosumab dosing recovered rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet remains suboptimal.

Timely administration of denosumab every 6mo is critical in osteoporosis treatment to avoid multiple vertebral fracture risk upon denosumab discontinuation or delay. This study aimed to estimate the immediate and prolonged impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the timing of denosumab doses. We identified older adults (≥66yr) residing in the community who were due to receive denosumab between January 2016 and December 2020 using Ontario Drug Benefit data. We completed an interrupted time-series analysis to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) on the monthly proportion of on-time denosumab doses (183 +/-30d). Analyses were stratified by user type: patients due for their second dose (novice users), third or fourth dose (intermediate users), or≥5th dose (established users). In additional analyses, we considered patients living in nursing homes, switching to other osteoporosis drugs, and reported trends until February 2022. We studied 148 554 patients (90.9% female, mean [SD] age 79.6 [8.0] yr) receiving 648 221 denosumab doses. The average pre-pandemic proportion of on-time therapy was steady in the community, yet differed by user type: 64.9% novice users, 72.3% intermediate users, and 78.0% established users. We identified an immediate overall decline in the proportion of on-time doses across all user types at the start of the pandemic: -17.8% (95% CI, -19.6, -16.0). In nursing homes, the pre-pandemic proportion of on-time therapy was similar across user types (average 83.5%), with a small decline at the start of the pandemic: -3.2% (95% CI, -5.0, -1.2). On-time therapy returned to pre-pandemic levels by October 2020 and was not impacted by therapy switching. Although on-time dosing remains stable as of February 2022, approximately one-fourth of patients in the community do not receive denosumab on-time. In conclusion, although pandemic disruptions to denosumab dosing were temporary, levels of on-time therapy remain suboptimal.

Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making

ObjectivesA health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. MethodsWe constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis. ResultsThe modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework’s key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores. ConclusionsWe iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Cost and value of cancer medicines in a single-payer public health system in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study

The financial impact of cancer medicines on health systems is not well known. We describe temporal trends in expenditure on cancer medicines within the single-payer health system of Ontario, Canada, and the extent of clinical benefit these treatments offer. In this cross-sectional study, we identified cancer medicines and expenditures from formularies and costing databases (the New Drug Funding Program, Ontario Drug Benefit Program, and The High-Cost Therapy Funding Program) during 10 consecutive years (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2022) in Ontario, Canada. For intravenous medicines, we applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to identify expenditures associated with substantial clinical benefit. We also identified treatments associated with improved overall survival or quality of life. 69 intravenous and 98 oral or injectable medicines were funded during 2012-22. Annual expenditure on cancer medicines increased by approximately 15% per year during 2012-22; the increase was more rapid in the most recent 4 years. Total expenditure on cancer medicines in the 2021-22 financial year was CA$1·7 billion. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were the single biggest expense by class ($284 million), representing 17% of the entire cancer medicine annual budget. Drugs with the highest individual costs were lenalidomide ($178 million) and pembrolizumab ($163 million), each accounting for around 10% of the entire budget. 29 (76%) of 38 indications eligible for ESMO-MCBS scoring met the threshold for substantial clinical benefit. Eight (21%) indications had no randomised trial evidence of improved overall survival, and only four (11%) were associated with improved QOL. $346 million (67% of the expenditure on intravenous cancer medicines) was spent on drugs that improved median overall survival by more than 6 months, $82 million (16%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of 3-6 months, and $32 million (6%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of less than 3 months. $53 million (10%) was spent on medicines with no established improvement in overall survival. Costs of cancer medicines to the Canadian health system are increasing rapidly. Most funded indications met thresholds for substantial clinical benefit and two-thirds of the expenditure were for medicines that improve survival by more than 6 months. Whether this cost trajectory can be maintained in a sustainable, equitable, high-quality health system is unclear. Efforts are needed to ensure the price of medicines with substantial benefit is affordable and funding of treatments with very modest benefit might need to be re-assessed, particularly when alternative supportive and palliative therapies are available. None.

Abstract 2508: EMP2 is a targetable biomarker in GBM tumors resistant to anti-angiogenic therapies

Abstract Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is characterized as the most aggressive and lethal primary brain tumor. One of the hallmarks of GBM tumor growth and progression lies within the proangiogenic tumor microenvironment. Current anti-angiogenic drugs such as the anti-VEGF antibody take effect by inducing tumor cell starvation, leading to a functional normalization of the tumor vasculature. However, the survival benefits of anti-angiogenic drugs have been very limited. To this end, we hypothesized that the tetraspan Epithelial Membrane Protein-2 (EMP2) may help mediate resistance. Objective: We hypothesize that Epithelial Membrane Protein-2 may serve as a targetable biomarker for anti-VEGF resistance. We further explored the effectiveness of combination therapy in SB28 and GL261 GBM mouse models using anti-VEGF drug, Aflibercept, with a novel anti-EMP2 monoclonal antibody (mAb). Results: Tumor tissue was collected prospectively from patients undergoing surgery for suspected glioblastoma and stained for EMP2 and HIF2a using standard immunohistochemistry. Patients had banked tumor tissue both prior to and after bevacizumab treatment with 3 months of clinical and radiologic follow-up available. Bevacizumab treatment increased EMP2 protein expression. This increase in EMP2 correlated with reduced mean survival time post-bevacizumab therapy. Similarly, HIF-2a showed increased expression post-bevacizumab treatment and showed expression in both tumor and stromal cells. Limited animal models exist for anti-VEGF therapy for GBM. To establish syngeneic models, 10 week-old mice were subcutaneously implanted with murine SB28 or GL261 GBM cells. Treatment with either polyclonal sera to VEGF or Aflibercept failed to reduce tumor load or provide a therapeutic benefit. To next investigate if this model could recapitulate the response obtained patients tumors, formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue was analyzed for both EMP2 and HIF-2a expression. Both markers were significantly upregulated in Aflibercept treated samples compared to the control.To next investigate if combination treatment could produce a significant reduction in tumor load, animals were treated with a combination treatment with Aflibercept and anti-EMP2 mAb. The combination therapy significantly reduced tumor volume and weight in comparison to control-treated tumors. Combination treatment in SB28 tumors resulted in a two fold reduction in tumor load and 50% reduction in tumor weight. Moreover, tumors showed reduced Ki67 expression. Similarly, treated GL261 tumors produced a 2.3 fold reduction in tumor size and ~2.7 fold reduction in tumor weight. Our results suggest that EMP2 can be a promising new target therapeutic target that can be combined with anti-VEGF treatment to potentially increase overall survival in GBM patients. Citation Format: Brian Aguirre, Mahlet Mekonnen, Riddhi Mehta, Meera Suresh, Anubhav Chandla, Karam Han, Isaac Yang, Madhuri Wadehra. EMP2 is a targetable biomarker in GBM tumors resistant to anti-angiogenic therapies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 2508.

Abstract 7277: Discovery of INV-9956, an orally available and highly selective Cyp11A1 inhibitor for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer with drug resistant AR mutations

Abstract Androgen Receptor (AR) signaling plays a profound role in prostate cancer and development. Efforts in harnessing androgen and AR axis for castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment have led to discovery of several therapeutics, including AR antagonists and Cyp17 inhibitors. However, resistance to these approved therapeutics has emerged, and remained a significant unmet medical need. Among the prominent resistance mechanisms of action are restored androgen signaling via AR amplification and overexpression, and gain-of-function mutations occurring at AR ligand binding domain that can be agonized by existing AR antagonists and/or non-androgenic steroids such as glucocorticoids. Targeting Cyp11A1 that catalyzes the formation of pregnenolone is effective to ablate biosynthesis of androgens and all steroids and thus holds promise to deliver coverage of a significant percentage of drug resistant AR mutations and benefit CRPC patients post treatment with AR antagonists or Cyp17 inhibitors. Here we present discovery and characterization of INV-9956, an orally available, selective, and potent Cyp11A1 inhibitor with well-acceptable pharmacokinetic properties. INV-9956 potently inhibits biosynthesis of pregnenolone and other androgens in H295R cells with IC50 at single-digit nanomolar, suppresses proliferation of prostate cancer cell lines harboring major clinically acquired drug resistant AR LBD mutations, such as AR L702H using coculture assays. Orally administered INV-9956 showed consistent dose dependent PK/PD correlations across animal species. Particularly, INV-9956 displayed pronounced tumor inhibition superior to known competitors in a CRPC VCaP xenograft model and in a “humanized” animal model. Furthermore, INV-9956 displayed a good tox profile in 14-day repeated dosing rat and dog studies, supported by a high selectivity to Cyp11A1 over other Cyp family members, clean hERG and mini-Ames, and no significant off-target activity in a safety panel screen. The promising preclinical profiles of INV-9956 lend strong support to its potentials in addressing unmet needs in CRPC treatments and warrant clinical development. Citation Format: Chang Bai, Danqi Chen, Zilei Xia, Shujuan Huang, LIshan Lin, Zhaopie Zeng, Jing Su, Yongkui Sun. Discovery of INV-9956, an orally available and highly selective Cyp11A1 inhibitor for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer with drug resistant AR mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 7277.

Efficacy and safety of selumetinib in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 and inoperable plexiform neurofibromas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The approval of selumetinib in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1(NF1) and inoperable plexiform neurofibromas (PN) has reshaped the landscape of clinical management of the disease, and further comprehensive evaluation of the drug's efficacy and safety is needed. Original articles reporting on the efficacy and safety of elumetinib in patients with NF1 were comprehensively searched in the Pubmed database, Embase database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database and screened for inclusion of studies that met the criteria. We pooled the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), disease progression rate (DPR), and the rate of improvement in PN-related complications using meta-analysis. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was also statistically analyzed. This study included 10 clinical trials involving 268 patients. The pooled ORR was 68.0% (95% CI 58.0-77.3%), the DCR was 96.8% (95% CI 90.8-99.7%) and the DPR was only 1.4% (95% CI 0-4.3%). The pooled improvement rate was 75.3% (95% CI 56.2-90.9%) for pain and 77.8% (95% CI 63.1-92.5%) for motor disorders. Most adverse events were mild, with the most common being gastrointestinal reactions (diarrhea: 62.5%; vomiting: 54.5%). Our study demonstrates that selumetinib is effective in patients with NF1 and PN, significantly improving the serious complications associated with PN as well as having tolerable toxicities. Our findings help to increase clinicians' confidence in applying selumetinib and promote the clinical adoption and benefit of the new drug.