Search

Background: Despite the high prevalence of brain metastases (BM) secondary to non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (NSCLC/BM), patients' experiences (symptoms and impacts) are not fully understood. This study sought to understand the patient experience with NSCLC/BM and identify a patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measure fit to capture the most important NSCLC/BM symptoms and impacts. Methods: A targeted literature review was completed; the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Brain Symptom Index, 24‐item version (NFBrSI‐24) was identified as a relevant measure that assessed the core symptoms and impacts associated with NSCLC/BM. Qualitative interviews composed of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing with oncologists (n = 3) and adult patients (n = 16) with NSCLC/BM were conducted to confirm the content validity and evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of the NFBrSI‐24 for this condition. Results: The NSCLC/BM symptoms and impacts identified in the literature and reported by oncologists and patients were consistent and captured in the NFBrSI‐24. Study participants reported significant burden associated with the symptoms (commonly fatigue, headache) and impacts of NSCLC/BM. Participants indicated that the NFBrSI‐24 captured their most salient experiences with NSCLC/BM and that symptom improvement or a delay in progression, as measured by the NFBrSI‐24, would be meaningful. During the cognitive debriefing, participants generally indicated that the NFBrSI‐24 was comprehensive and easy to understand/answer and that it assessed symptoms they considered most important to treat. Conclusions: These results suggest that the NFBrSI‐24 adequately captures an appropriate measure of NSCLC/BM symptoms and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biologic psoriasis treatments are differentiated by efficacy, side effects, and other attributes. Determine attributes of biologic psoriasis treatments that drive patients' treatment choices. Respondents (USA: n = 300; Germany: n = 300) with moderate-to-severe psoriasis completed a discrete-choice–experiment survey, choosing between hypothetical treatments characterized by attributes with varying levels: chance of clear skin after 1 year, number of first-year treatments, first-year risks of mild-to-moderate injection site reaction (ISR) and serious infection, and years of proven efficacy/safety. U.S. respondents most valued clear skin (conditional relative importance, 1.88; p <.05). While other attributes were of generally equivalent importance, ISR risk outweighed serious-infection risk (1.06 vs. 0.70; p <.05). German respondents placed greatest importance on ISR risk (1.61; p <.05) and clear skin (1.49; p <.05). Respondents evaluated hypothetical treatments and were recruited from web panels. Clear skin and ISR risk are stronger drivers of treatment choice than injection frequency and infection risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence regarding biologics dosing patterns and its costs among psoriasis patients in the United Kingdom (UK). Objective: This retrospective study assessed biologics dose increase beyond labelled dose and associated UK pharmacy costs in moderate to severe psoriasis patients. Methods: Adult psoriasis patients on biologic prescription for ≥12 continuous months between January 2010 and March 2015 with their diagnosis recorded in the UK Hospital Treatment Insights Database within one month of such prescription were included. The proportion of patients receiving ≥30% higher the average daily maintenance dose as per the UK product label, and associated 12-month costs were reported. Results: The study included 362 patients, receiving adalimumab (48%), etanercept (17%), ustekinumab (12%), and infliximab (23%). Beyond labelled dose increase was noted in 14% adalimumab, 20% etanercept, 18% ustekinumab and 28% infliximab patients with an associated mean annual extra cost per patient of £7936, £5912, £2422 and £2275, respectively. Conclusion: Dose increase beyond labelled dose of biologics was commonly observed in moderate to severe psoriasis in the UK and resulted in substantial annual incremental pharmacy costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BCR-ABL inhibitors for treating chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase have transformed a previously incurable malignancy into a manageable condition. However, suboptimal medication adherence has been observed with these agents affecting clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. In order to raise awareness of the problem of adherence, and before developing pragmatic strategies to enhance medication adherence, a deep understanding of the best approaches for measuring adherence in chronic myeloid leukemia patients and identifying non-adherence is required. A systematic literature review on the prevalence, measurement methods, consequences and risk factors for non-adherence to BCR-ABL inhibitors and adherence-enhancing interventions was performed and critically appraised. Of the 19 included articles, 9 were retrospective. Average adherence varied from 19% to almost 100% of the proportion of prescribed drug taken, but it was measured through various different methods and within different study groups. Suboptimal adherence was associated with a negative impact on both clinical and economic outcomes. There is a lack of supportive evidence demonstrating a difference in adherence across BCR-ABL inhibitors and even contradictory results between the 2(nd) generation inhibitors. Drug-related adverse events and forgetfulness were common reasons for intentional and unintentional non-adherence, respectively, but further research is required to identify additional reasons behind non-adherence or patients at risk of non-adherence. Non-adherence in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with BCR-ABL inhibitors is common and associated with critical outcomes. However, this review highlights important existing gaps, reveals inconsistent definitions, and a lack of standardized methods for measuring adherence in chronic myeloid leukemia. All require further investigation.

Objectives: In the 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled ATTEST trial, efficacy of abatacept or infliximab versus placebo was reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). The current study estimated trial-based and real-life costs of abatacept and infliximab for achieving pre-defined remission or low disease activity state (LDAS)., Methods: Quantity of drug, serious adverse event (SAE) rates and time (months) in remission or LDAS were taken from ATTEST for the trial-based calculation to derive a cost per remitting/LDAS patient and a cost per patient-month in remission/LDAS. Trial-based and real-life scenarios were performed., Results: The annual trial-based costs per remitting/LDAS patient were €70.238/€37.208 for abatacept and €85.565/€46.602 for infliximab. In the first 6 months of the ATTEST trial, costs per patient-month in remission/LDAS were higher for abatacept (€11.024 and €6.018, respectively), relative to infliximab (€8.347 and €4.174, respectively). Over the full 12-month trial period cost per month in remission/LDAS estimates were only slightly in favour of infliximab (€6.959/€3.625) relative to abatacept (€7.297/€3.909). Assuming extension of treatment under real life conditions the cost per month in remission/LDAS turned substantially in favour of abatacept (€5.321/€2.819), as compared to infliximab (€7.189/€3.916). The higher initiation cost for abatacept to achieve remission/LDAS would be offset after a total 14.6 and 16.1 months of treatment, respectively, if treatment extended beyond 6 months under real-life conditions. These results proved to be robust when it was assumed that the (i) sharing of vials across patients completely averted infliximab wastage, (ii) AE risks were similar and (iii) onset of response was slower for abatacept., Conclusions: Our findings suggest a lower cost-consequence for abatacept during real-life treatment.