Search

We performed a systematic literature review to identify and summarize data from studies reporting clinical efficacy and safety outcomes for trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) combined with other antineoplastic agents in advanced cancers, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a systematic search on May 29, 2021, for studies reporting one or more efficacy or safety outcome with FTD/TPI-containing combinations. Our search yielded 1378 publications, with 38 records meeting selection criteria: 35 studies of FTD/TPI-containing combinations in mCRC (31 studies second line or later) and 3 studies in other tumor types. FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab was extensively studied, including 19 studies in chemorefractory mCRC. Median overall survival ranged 8.6-14.4 months and median progression-free survival 3.7-6.8 months with FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab in refractory mCRC. Based on one randomized and several retrospective studies, FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab was associated with improved outcomes compared with FTD/TPI monotherapy. FTD/TPI combinations with chemotherapy or other targeted agents were reported in small early-phase studies; preliminary data indicated higher antitumor activity for certain combinations. Overall, no safety concerns existed with FTD/TPI combinations; most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event was neutropenia, ranging 5%-100% across all studies. In studies comparing FTD/TPI combinations with monotherapy, grade ≥ 3 neutropenia appeared more frequently with combinations (29%-67%) vs. monotherapy (5%-41%). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events ranged 0%-11% for FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab and 0%-17% with other combinations. This systematic review supports feasibility and safety of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab in refractory mCRC. Data on non-bevacizumab FTD/TPI combinations remain preliminary and need further validation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies are typically administered in the inpatient setting, outpatient administration is rapidly expanding. However, there is limited summarized evidence comparing outcomes between outpatient and inpatient administration. This systematic literature review aims to compare the safety, efficacy, quality of life (QoL), costs, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) outcomes in patients with hematological cancer who are administered CAR-T therapy in an outpatient versus an inpatient setting. Publications (2016 or later) that reported the outcomes of interest in patients treated with a CAR-T therapy in both outpatient and inpatient settings, or only the outpatient setting, were reviewed. In total, 38 publications based on 21 studies were included. Safety findings suggested the comparable frequency of adverse events in the two settings. Eleven studies that reported data in both settings showed comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient). Improvements in the QoL were observed in both settings while costs associated with CAR-T therapy were lower in the outpatient setting. Although unplanned hospitalizations were higher in the outpatient cohort, overall HCRU was lower. Outpatient administration of CAR-T therapy appears to have comparable outcomes in safety, efficacy, and QoL to inpatient administration while reducing the economic burden.

This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of pimecrolimus vs other topical treatments in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD), focusing on children and sensitive skin areas. An SLR was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases on January 15th, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with pimecrolimus as a study arm. Another SLR performed on October 5th, 2020 identified RCTs with a crisaborole study arm. Direct pair-wise meta-analysis was used to compare pimecrolimus with vehicle, tacrolimus or topical corticosteroids (TCS; n = 27 studies). Outcomes included Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score 0/1 up to week 6 and adverse events. Pimecrolimus was more efficacious than vehicle in achieving IGA 0/1 up to week 6 in children, and similar safety profiles were observed with pimecrolimus and vehicle in children and the mixed population, including on sensitive skin. No significant differences in efficacy and safety were observed between pimecrolimus and tacrolimus 0.03%. Efficacy and safety were similar for pimecrolimus and mild medium potency TCS; mildly potent steroids caused transient epidermal thinning in sensitive skin areas (not seen with pimecrolimus). Pimecrolimus can be considered as a first-line option for mild-to-moderate AD, particularly in children and sensitive skin areas.

Background: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage., Methods: Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period., Results: The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively., Conclusions: The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies)., Competing Interests: Competing interestsSK and AM are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. HJ is a contractor at Bristol-Myers Squibb. RP, HB, and SR are employees of SmartAnalyst Inc. or its subsidiaries.