Search

Funder: UK‐PBC MRC Stratified Medicine, Funder: Pfizer; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004319, BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Stratified therapy has entered clinical practice in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), with routine use of second-line therapy in nonresponders to first-line therapy with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). The mechanism for nonresponse to UDCA remains, however, unclear and we lack mechanistic serum markers. The UK-PBC study was established to explore the biological basis of UDCA nonresponse in PBC and identify markers to enhance treatment. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Discovery serum proteomics (Olink) with targeted multiplex validation were carried out in 526 subjects from the UK-PBC cohort and 97 healthy controls. In the discovery phase, untreated PBC patients (n = 68) exhibited an inflammatory proteome that is typically reduced in scale, but not resolved, with UDCA therapy (n = 416 treated patients). Nineteen proteins remained at a significant expression level (defined using stringent criteria) in UDCA-treated patients, six of them representing a tightly linked profile of chemokines (including CCL20, known to be released by biliary epithelial cells (BECs) undergoing senescence in PBC). All showed significant differential expression between UDCA responders and nonresponders in both the discovery and validation cohorts. A linear discriminant analysis, using serum levels of C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 11 and C-C motif chemokine ligand 20 as markers of responder status, indicated a high level of discrimination with an AUC of 0.91 (CI, 0.83-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: UDCA under-response in PBC is characterized by elevation of serum chemokines potentially related to cellular senescence and was previously shown to be released by BECs in PBC, suggesting a potential role in the pathogenesis of high-risk disease. These also have potential for development as biomarkers for identification of high-risk disease, and their clinical utility as biomarkers should be evaluated further in prospective studies.

Nigel Armstrong,1 Steve Ryder,1 Carol Forbes,2 Janine Ross,3 Ruben GW Quek41Health Economics, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York YO19 6FD, UK; 2Systematic Reviews, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York YO19 6FD, UK; 3Information, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York YO19 6FD, UK; 4Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc., San Francisco, CA 94105, USAAbstract: A systematic review was conducted, summarizing international BRCA 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutation prevalence in breast cancer. Databases (eg, Medline and Embase; N=7) and conferences were searched (January 2012 to December 2017). From 17,872 records, 70 studies were included. In 58 large (N>100) studies, BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence varied widely from 1.8% (Spain) in sporadic breast cancer to 36.9% (United States) in estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor low+ (1–9% on immunohistochemistry/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative [HER2-]) breast cancer. In 2 large studies unselected for family history, ethnicity, sex, or age and no/unclear selection by breast cancer stage or hormone receptor (HR) status, germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation prevalence was 2.9% (Italy) to 3.0% (South Korea). In the 4 large unselected triple-negative breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence varied from 9.3% (Australia) to 15.4% (United States). gBRCA mutation prevalence in 1 large unselected HR positive/HER2- early breast cancer study was 5% (United States). In 2 large unselected metastatic breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence was 2.7% (France) and 4.3% (Germany). Locally advanced breast cancer studies were small and not in unselected populations. Poor reporting of gBRCA status and basis of selection implies a need for further large well-reported BRCA mutation prevalence studies in breast cancer.Keywords: BRCA1, BRCA2, prevalence, systematic review, chemotherapy

Background: In recent years, meters for continuous monitoring of interstitial fluid glucose have been introduced to help people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) to achieve better control of their disease. Objective: The objective of this project was to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed® Paradigm™ Veo system (Medtronic Inc., Northridge, CA, USA) and the Vibe™ (Animas® Corporation, West Chester, PA, USA) and G4® PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system (Dexcom Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) in comparison with multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), both with either self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or CGM, for the management of T1DM in adults and children. Data sources: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostic Assessment Programme manual. We searched 14 databases, three trial registries and two conference proceedings from study inception up to September 2014. In addition, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were checked. In the absence of randomised controlled trials directly comparing Veo or an integrated CSII + CGM system, such as Vibe, with comparator interventions, indirect treatment comparisons were performed if possible. Methods: A commercially available cost-effectiveness model, the IMS Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness diabetes model version 8.5 (IMS Health, Danbury, CT, USA), was used for this assessment. This model is an internet-based, interactive simulation model that predicts the long-term health outcomes and costs associated with the management of T1DM and type 2 diabetes. The model consists of 15 submodels designed to simulate diabetes-related complications, non-specific mortality and costs over time. As the model simulates individual patients over time, it updates risk factors and complications to account for disease progression. Results: Fifty-four publications resulting from 19 studies were included in the review. Overall, the evidence suggests that the Veo system reduces hypoglycaemic events more than other treatments, without any differences in other outcomes, including glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. We also found significant results in favour of the integrated CSII + CGM system over MDIs with SMBG with regard to HbA1c levels and quality of life. However, the evidence base was poor. The quality of the included studies was generally low, often with only one study comparing treatments in a specific population at a specific follow-up time. In particular, there was only one study comparing Veo with an integrated CSII + CGM system and only one study comparing Veo with a CSII + SMBG system in a mixed population. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that MDI + SMBG is the option most likely to be cost-effective, given the current threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas integrated CSII + CGM systems and Veo are dominated and extendedly dominated, respectively, by stand-alone, non-integrated CSII with CGM. Scenario analyses did not alter these conclusions. No cost-effectiveness modelling was conducted for children or pregnant women. Conclusions: The Veo system does appear to be better than the other systems considered at reducing hypoglycaemic events. However, in adults, it is unlikely to be cost-effective. Integrated systems are also generally unlikely to be cost-effective given that stand-alone systems are cheaper and, possibly, no less effective. However, evidence in this regard is generally lacking, in particular for children. Future trials in specific child, adolescent and adult populations should include longer term follow-up and ratings on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions scale at various time points with a view to informing improved cost-effectiveness modelling.