Search

Zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2), has shown efficacy in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. We report the results of the SPOTLIGHT trial, which investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (modified folinic acid [or levofolinate], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin regimen) versus placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

There is an urgent need for first-line treatment options for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) is expressed in normal gastric cells and maintained in malignant G/GEJ adenocarcinoma cells. GLOW (closed enrollment), a global, double-blind, phase 3 study, examined zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CLDN18.2, plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients (n= 507) were randomized 1:1 (block sizes of two) to zolbetuximab plus CAPOX or placebo plus CAPOX. GLOW met the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (median, 8.21 months versus 6.80 months with zolbetuximab versus placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.687; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.544–0.866; P= 0.0007) and key secondary endpoint of overall survival (median, 14.39 months versus 12.16 months; HR = 0.771; 95% CI, 0.615–0.965; P= 0.0118). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with zolbetuximab (72.8%) and placebo (69.9%). Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX represents a potential new first-line therapy for patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT03653507.

ABSTRACTObjectives: To estimate the pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to proton pump inhibitors.Methods: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant studies. The authors quantified pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to PPIs, expressed as the pooled (adjusted) odds ratio (OR/aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) in overall and sensitivity analyses.Results: One randomized trial, two cohort, four case-control, and five nested case-control studies with 700,178 subjects (73,985 cases; 626,193 controls) were retained. PPI exposure was associated with pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.75, 95%CI = 1.12–2.72, I2 = 99%); confirmed in sensitivity analyses for high-quality studies, observational studies, case-control studies, studies with pancreatic cancer as the primary outcome, and in sensitivity analyses for diabetes and obesity but not for pancreatitis and smoking. This association was independent of the duration and Defined Daily Dose of PPI exposure. Rabeprazole had a singular significant association with pancreatic cancer (OR = 5.40, 95%CI = 1.98–14.703, I2 = 87.9%).Conclusion: The class of PPIs is associated with a 1.75-fold increase in pancreatic cancer risk, confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

IMPORTANCE: A phase 2 trial comparing talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab vs ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma found no differential benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) but noted objective response rates (ORRs) of 38.8% (38 of 98 patients) vs 18.0% (18 of 100 patients), respectively. OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab combination therapy vs ipilimumab monotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For PFS, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses using a 2-state Markov model (PFS vs progression or death) was performed. For ORRs, cost-effectiveness analysis of the incremental cost of 1 additional patient achieving objective response was performed. In this setting based on a US payer perspective (2017 US dollars), participants were patients with advanced unresectable melanoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The PFS life-years and PFS quality-adjusted life-years were determined, and the associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were estimated. Also estimated was the ICER per 1 additional patient (out of 100 treated patients) achieving objective response. Base-case analyses were validated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In PFS analyses, the cost of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($494 983) exceeded the cost of ipilimumab monotherapy ($132 950) by $362 033. The ICER was $2 129 606 per PFS life-years, and the ICUR was $2 262 706 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded an ICER of $1 481 208 per PFS life-year gained and an ICUR of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS hazard ratio and the utility of response were the most influential parameters. Talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab has a 50% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In ORR analyses, talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($474 904) vs ipilimumab alone ($132 810), a $342 094 difference, yielded an ICER of $1 629 019 per additional patient achieving objective response. In subgroup analyses by disease stage and BRAFV600E mutation status, ICERs ranged from $1 069 044 to $17 104 700 per 1 additional patient achieving objective response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The cost to gain 1 additional progression-free quality-adjusted life-year, 1 additional progression-free life-year, or to have 1 additional patient attain objective response is about $1.6 million. This amount may be beyond what payers typically are willing to pay. Combination therapy of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab does not offer an economically beneficial treatment option relative to ipilimumab monotherapy at the population level. This should not preclude treatment for individual patients for whom this regimen may be indicated.

Background:Prior to targeted therapies, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) was the primary therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with 17p deletion (del(17p)). Treatment options now include oral ibrutinib, which produces significant progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with acceptable safety and the convenience of being non-invasive. Complete remission is unlikely and ibrutinib is not considered curative. HSCT has curative potential, but is associated with high upfront cost, potential transplant-related morbidity and mortality (incl. graft-versus-host disease) and potential relapse. Both treatments are expensive with relative differences in cost of treatment and supportive care management. Considering these different profiles, we performed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of ibrutinib versus HSCT in R/R CLL del(17p) from a US payer perspective.

Background:Until the advent of targeted agents, the primary treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with 17p deletion (del(17p)) was allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Venetoclax is a targeted therapy that has been shown to effect significant progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with an acceptable safety profile and the convenience of oral administration. HSCT is potentially curative but is associated with potential transplant-associated morbidity and mortality (incl. graft-versus-host disease) and relapse. Both treatments are expensive, HSCT largely up-front and venetoclax long term, with relative differences in cost of treatment and supportive care management. Considering these different efficacy, safety, and procedural profiles, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of venetoclax versus HSCT in R/R CLL del(17p) from a US payer perspective.