Impact of bolus versus continuous infusion of doxorubicin (DOX) on cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer (BC) and sarcomas: Analysis of real-world data.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19123-e19123
Author(s):  
Lee D. Cranmer ◽  
Lisa M. Hess ◽  
Tomoko Sugihara ◽  
Yajun Emily Zhu

e19123 Background: Doxorubicin continues to play a central role in management of breast cancer and sarcomas. Dose-dependent cardiomyopathy is a challenge in its use. Strategies have been proposed to mitigate this, including administration by continuous intravenous (CIV) infusion as an alternative to bolus (BOL) administration. This study used real world data to explore the impact of DOX administration mode on cardiotoxicity, duration of DOX and time to treatment failure (TTF). Methods: This study used IBM MarketScan claims to identify patients age ≥ 18 who received at least 2 DOX administrations after cancer diagnosis. Patients with history of cardiac events/toxicities were excluded. Cardiac events were compared for BOL versus CIV overall, by tumor site and by regimen during three follow-up periods, early (within 1 year), middle (>1 to 5 years) and late (>5 years), from DOX initiation using Fisher’s exact test. Duration of DOX and TTF, defined as time from initiation of DOX to subsequent systemic therapy, hospice or death, were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method and unadjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Results: 62,597 patients were eligible, including 38,961 with BC and 1,772 with sarcoma. Most patients had codes for both modes; 1,941 and 7,094 patients had exclusive BOL and CIV codes, respectively. For these patients, mean duration of DOX was longer for BOL vs. CIV (83.9 vs. 65.4 days, p<0.001). Cardiac events for BOL vs. CIV were 6.5% vs. 5.6% (p=0.098) during the early period, 4% vs. 5.1% (p=0.046) middle period, and 0.5% vs. 0.9% (p=0.068) late period. This pattern was consistent for BC and sarcoma and among those who were pre-treated. There were no differences in cardiac events for BOL vs. CIV for the chemotherapy naïve or DOX monotherapy groups (all periods p>0.10) but statistically different for the breast during the middle period, sarcoma at any time, and pretreated subgroup middle period (all p<0.05). TTF favored CIV over BOL among patients with BC (p<0.0001) but BOL over CIV in sarcoma (p=0.002). TTF was not significantly different between BOL and CIV for BC monotherapy (p=0.067) but was significant for sarcoma monotherapy favoring BOL administration (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.95, p=0.02). Conclusions: These data suggest that cardiac events may occur at a similar rate irrespective of mode of DOX administration. Further analyses are needed to understand how these relationships are impacted by other potential risk covariates (eg, age, gender) and by protective factors (eg, dexrazoxane).

2021 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. S608
Author(s):  
I. Fornacon-Wood ◽  
H. Mistry ◽  
C. Johnson-Hart ◽  
J.P.B. O’Connor ◽  
C. Faivre-Finn ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1048-1048
Author(s):  
Wei Fang Dai ◽  
Jaclyn Marie Beca ◽  
Chenthila Nagamuthu ◽  
Ning Liu ◽  
Maureen E. Trudeau ◽  
...  

1048 Background: Addition of P to T+chemo for MBC pts has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in a pivotal randomized trial (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.84) (Baselga et al., NEJM 2012). In Canada, the manufacturer submission to the health technology assessment agency estimated that P produced 0.64 life years gained (LYG) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $187,376/LYG over 10 years (CADTH-pCODR, 2013). This retrospective cohort analysis aims to determine the comparative real-world population-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of P among MBC pts in Ontario, Canada. Methods: MBC pts were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to the New Drug Funding Program database to identify receipt of treatment between 1/1/2008 and 3/31/2018. Cases received P-T-chemo after universal public funding of P (Nov 2013) and controls received T-chemo before. Demographic (age, socioeconomic, rurality) and clinical (comorbidities, prior adjuvant treatments, prior breast cancer surgery, prior radiation, stage at diagnosis, ER/PR status) characteristics were identified from linked admin databases balanced between cases and controls using propensity score matching. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regressions accounting for matched pairs were used to estimate median OS and HR. 5-year mean total costs from the public health system perspective were estimated from admin claims databases using established direct statistical methods and adjusted for censoring of both cost and effectiveness using inverse probability weighting. ICERs and 95% bootstrapped CIs were calculated, along with incremental net benefit (INB) at various willingness-to-pay values using net benefit regression. Results: We identified 1,823 MBC pts with 912 cases and 911 controls (mean age = 55 years), of which 579 pairs were matched. Cases had improved OS (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.78), with median 3.4 years, compared to controls median OS of 2.1. P provided an additional 0.63 (95% CI: 0.48 – 0.84) LYG at an incremental cost of $196,622 (95% CI: $180,774, $219,172), with a mean ICER = $312,147/LYG (95% CI: $260,752, $375,492). At threshold of $100,000/LYG, the INB was -$133,632 (95% CI: -$151,525, -$115,739) with < 1% probability of being cost-effective. Key drivers of incremental cost increase between groups included drug and cancer clinic costs. Conclusions: The addition of P to T-chemo for MBC increased survival but at significant costs. The ICER based on direct real-world data was higher than the initial economic model due to higher total costs for pts receiving P. This study demonstrated feasibility to derive ICER from person-level real-world data to inform cancer drug life-cycle health technology reassessment.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 149-150
Author(s):  
Amr Makady ◽  
Ard van Veelen ◽  
Anthonius de Boer ◽  
Hans Hillege ◽  
Olaf Klunger ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION:Reimbursement decisions are usually based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) with high internal validity but lower external validity. Real-World Data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REA's) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEA's) of treatments. This study explores to which extent RWD is incorporated in REA's and CEA's of drugs used to treat metastatic melanoma (MM) by five Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies.METHODS:Dossiers for MM drugs published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved for HTA agencies in five countries: the United Kingdom (NICE), Scotland (SMC), France (HAS), Germany (IQWiG) and the Netherlands (ZIN). A standardized data-extraction form was used to extract data on RWD mentioned in the assessment and its impact on appraisal (for example, positive, negative, neutral or unknown) for both REA and CEA.RESULTS:In total, fourty-nine dossiers were retrieved: NICE = 10, SMC = 13, IQWiG = 16, HAS = 8 and ZIN = 2. Nine dossiers (18.4 percent) included RWD in REA's for several parameters: to describe effectiveness (n = 5) and/or the safety (n = 2) of the drug, and/or the prevalence of MM (n = 4). CEA's were included in 25/49 dossiers (IQWiG and HAS did not perform CEA's). Of the twenty-five CEA's, twenty (80 percent) included RWD to extrapolate long-term effectiveness (n = 19), and/or identify costs associated with treatments (n = 7). When RWD was included in REA's (n = 9), its impact on the appraisal was negative (n = 4), neutral (n = 2), unknown (n = 1) or was not discussed in the appraisal (n = 2). When RWD was included in CEA's (n = 11), its impact on the appraisal varied between positive (n = 2), negative (n = 5) and unknown (n = 4).CONCLUSIONS:Generally, RWD is more often included in CEA's than REA's (80 percent versus 18.4 percent, respectively). When included, RWD was mostly used to describe the effectiveness of the drug (REA) or to predict long-term effectiveness (CEA). The impact of RWD on the appraisal varied greatly within both REA's and CEA's.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document