Real-World Characteristics of Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma Receiving Frontline Brentuximab Vedotin with Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis with Propensity Score Matching

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Tycel J. Phillips ◽  
Kristina Yu-Isenberg ◽  
Nicholas Liu ◽  
Andy Surinach ◽  
Carlos Flores ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Brentuximab Vedotin ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Pet Ct

Introduction: In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 study (NCT01712490), treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival in patients with newly-diagnosed stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD). The results of ECHELON-1 supported the March 2018 US FDA approval of A+AVD for adults with frontline (FL) stage III or IV cHL. To optimize outcomes for patients with stage III or IV cHL receiving ABVD, the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend an interim PET/CT imaging (PET2) at the end of cycle 2 to inform escalation or de-escalation of therapy. In the current study we describe the real-world patient characteristics, supportive care use, and PET2 utilization in A+AVD and ABVD patients outside of the clinical trial setting in the US. Methods: Using medical and pharmacy claims data in the US Symphony Health Solutions database, a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with cHL receiving FL A+AVD or ABVD was conducted to compare treatment and utilization characteristics. Patients ≥18 years with one inpatient or two outpatient ICD-9 or 10 cHL diagnosis codes, newly prescribed A+AVD or ABVD (index date) between March 2018 and January 2020, and with ≥6 months continuous activity before and a minimum of 3 months after the index date were included. To adjust for confounding factors, a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed based on age, gender, baseline comorbidities, geographic region and length of follow-up. Results: A total of 4259 patients met inclusion criteria (1002 A+AVD and 3257 ABVD) with a median follow-up duration of 14 and 15 months, respectively. In unmatched cohorts, median age at index date of A+AVD vs ABVD was 48 and 39 years, with 41% and 52% of patients between the ages of 18-39, and 34% vs 20% age ≥60, respectively. Patients on A+AVD had higher comorbidity burden across all conditions included in the Charlson Comorbidity Index, with 41% vs 33% of ABVD patients reporting 1+ comorbidities, with chronic pulmonary disease (18% vs 14%, p=0.006) being the most prevalent (Table 1). Following propensity score matching, A+AVD patients received significantly higher granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), 90% vs 44%, with 80% and 20% as primary prophylaxis (p<0.001) vs ABVD, respectively. In the A+AVD and ABVD cohorts, only 31% and 38% of patients underwent interim PET2 restaging, respectively (Table 2). In ABVD patients, 44% who received an interim PET2 and 33% who did not receive an interim PET2 de-escalated to AVD. The rate of subsequent therapy was similar between A+AVD and ABVD (13% vs 11%; p=0.163); of the patients who received subsequent therapy, 43% of ABVD patients received a brentuximab vedotin-containing regimen and 19% of A+AVD were retreated with a brentuximab vedotin-containing regimen. Conclusions: In this first real-world evaluation, patients with cHL receiving FL A+AVD were older, had higher burden of comorbidities, utilized recommended G-CSF as primary prophylaxis, and had similar rate of subsequent therapy compared to ECHELON-1 patients. Only about one third of patients underwent interim PET2 restaging, and less than half of the patients who started on ABVD were de-escalated to AVD. Confounding by unmeasured characteristics, such as disease stage and PET/CT results, is a limitation of this and any retrospective study based on claims data. However, this hypothesis-generating analysis suggests the need to: 1) control for patient characteristics (e.g., age, comorbidities) in comparative real-world analyses; 2) understand reasons for the lack of PET/CT use; and 3) evaluate the actual use of the interim PET2 to escalate or de-escalate treatment in patients with cHL. The need to optimize treatment outcomes while maximizing short- and long-term treatment efficacy and safety is paramount. Characteristics and management of this real-world population with cHL differed from those in the ECHELON-1 trial, demonstrating the importance of retrospective studies in assessing the impact of new regimens on clinical practice and in identifying areas for further education of practitioners. Disclosures Phillips: Beigene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy. Yu-Isenberg:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Surinach:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flores:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lisano:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Burke:Verastem: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy.

Real-World Characteristics of Patients with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Receiving Frontline Brentuximab Vedotin with Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis with Propensity Score Matching

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
John M. Burke ◽  
Nicholas Liu ◽  
Kristina Yu-Isenberg ◽  
Michelle A. Fanale ◽  
Andy Surinach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Brentuximab Vedotin ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Genetics Research ◽  
T Cell Lymphomas

Introduction: In the phase 3 ECHELON-2 study (NCT01777152), treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) + cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A+CHP) demonstrated significantly longer progression-free and overall survival compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) in the frontline (FL) treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL). This study supported the November 2018 US FDA approval of A+CHP as FL therapy for adults with sALCL or other CD30-expressing PTCL. The current analysis describes patient characteristics, PTCL subtypes, and supportive care use of FL A+CHP and CHOP outside of the clinical trial setting in the US. Methods: Using medical and pharmacy claims data in the Symphony Health Solutions database, a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with PTCL treated with FL A+CHP or CHOP was conducted to compare treatment and utilization characteristics. Patients ≥18 years with 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient ICD-9/10 PTCL diagnosis codes, newly initiated on A+CHP or CHOP (index date) between November 2018 and January 2020, and with ≥6 months continuous activity before and ≥3 months after the index date were included. To adjust for confounding factors, a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed based on age, gender, baseline comorbidities, geographic region and length of follow-up. Results: A total of 755 patients met inclusion criteria (335 A+CHP; 420 CHOP) with a median follow-up period of 10.1 and 10.6 months, respectively. In the unmatched cohorts, 61% were male, and median age at index was 62 and 69 years for A+CHP and CHOP, respectively. The prevalence of comorbidities based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index was similar between the cohorts; prevalent conditions included diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and liver disease (Table 1). PTCL subtypes treated with A+CHP included sALCL (54%), PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS; 27%), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 13%); subtypes treated with CHOP included PTCL-NOS (35%), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL; 35%), and AITL (11%) (Table 2). After matching, the proportion of patients who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF; A+CHP: 91%, CHOP: 86%, p=0.1) and the incidence rate of neutropenia (A+CHP: 45%, CHOP: 42%, p=0.4) during FL treatment for both study cohorts was similar. Of patients who received G-CSF, the majority received it as primary prophylaxis given within the first 5 days of FL treatment initiation (A+CHP: 89%, CHOP: 85%, p=0.2). The rate of subsequent therapy (ie, therapy change after FL), was similar between A+CHP and CHOP (18% vs 21%; p=0.3) and for the sALCL subtype (16% vs 26%, p=0.2). Of the A+CHP patients who received subsequent therapy, 32% were retreated with a BV-containing regimen and 19% of CHOP patients received a BV-containing regimen. Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, US patients with PTCL newly initiated on A+CHP or CHOP were older (67 vs 58 years) than those in ECHELON-2. There was a high comorbidity burden; over half of the patients in both cohorts had 1+ comorbidities, a potential reflection of the older population. As would be expected due to a high rate of CD30-positivity in the disease, A+CHP was more commonly used than CHOP in sALCL. In PTCL subtypes in which CD30 is more variably expressed, A+CHP and CHOP were used with similar frequencies. Although clinical trials in ATLL have demonstrated improved outcomes with more complex and intensive regimens than CHOP, CHOP remains commonly used in ATLL. A+CHP was also used in PTCL subtypes not included in ECHELON-2, such as NK/T cell lymphomas. G-CSF was used as primary prophylaxis in the large majority of patients in both cohorts. The use of a BV-containing regimen as subsequent therapy was more common in A+CHP vs CHOP, probably because the tumors of A+CHP patients were more likely to have expressed CD30. Confounding by unmeasured characteristics cannot be ruled out due to inherent limitations in claims data (eg, lack of disease stage, CD30 testing and response outcomes). Characteristics and management of this real-world population with PTCL differed from those in the ECHELON-2 trial, demonstrating the importance of retrospective studies to assess the impact of new regimens on clinical practice and to identify areas for further education of practitioners. Disclosures Burke: Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Liu:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yu-Isenberg:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Surinach:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flores:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lisano:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Phillips:Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lymphoma Connect: Other; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; University of Michigan: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

scholarly journals A Real World Experience of Combined Treatment with Romidepsin and Azacitidine in Patients with Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4550-4550
Author(s):  
Matko Kalac ◽  
Constantine S. Tam ◽  
Mendel Goldfinger ◽  
Zhengrui Xiao ◽  
Francesca Montanari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Peripheral T Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Pet Ct

Abstract BACKGROUND Patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) lack good treatment options, particularly in the relapsed and refractory setting (Mak V et al. J Clin Oncol 2013). The development of the targeted therapies in PTCL has been lagging behind those developed for B cell lymphomas. Our work suggested that combinations of epigenetic therapies can be a safe and effective approach for patients with PTCL, particularly those with T-cell lymphomas with a follicular helper phenotype (Marchi E et al. Br. J Haematol 2015; O'Connor O.A. et al; Blood 2019; Falchi L et al. Blood 2020). While the reason for this is not clear, it is thought recurrent mutations in epigenetic factors, including Ten-Eleven Translocation-2 (TET2), DNA methyl transferase-3A (DNMT3A) and isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 (IDH2) may contribute for their increased vulnerability (Couronné L. et al. N Eng J Med 2012; Lemonnier F et al. Blood 2012). Despite these presumptions, a direct explanation for the sensitivity to epigenetic based treatment remains to be established. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the merits of romidepsin plus subcutaneous azacitidine in patients with PTCL when administered in a 'real-world' scenario. METHODS We retrospectively identified PTCL patients that were treated with azacitidine and romidepsin outside of a clinical trial based upon queries regarding off study use. The study was reviewed and approved by each Medical Center Institutional Review Board. We have identified 13 patients world-wide whose pretreatment characteristics are shown in Table 1. These patients were treated using 3 different schedules: Schedule A: azacitidine 75mg/m2 s.c. on days 1-7, romidepsin 14 mg/m2 on day 1, 8 and 15 of a 28 day cycle (total of 6 patients); Schedule B: azacitidine 75mg/m2 s.c. on days 1-5, romidepsin 14 mg/m2 on day 8, 15 and 22 of a 35 day cycle; and Schedule C (total of 2 patients): azacitidine 75mg/m2 s.c. on days 1-7, romidepsin 12-14 mg/m2 on day 8, 15 and 22 of a 28 day cycle (total of 5 patients). RESULTS We retrospectively identified 13 patients that were treated with romidepsin and azacitidine off study. Ten patients had angioimmunoblastic lymphoma (AITL), 2 had adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL) and 1 had PTCL-NOS. Eight of the 13 patients had next generation sequencing performed. Most common mutations found were those of TET2 (5 pts), RHOA (4pts), IDH2 (3pts) and DNMT3A (1 pt). One ATLL patient had mutations in TRAF3, FAT1 and MED12. Among these 13 patients, overall response rate (ORR) was 84% and the complete response rate (CR) was 61%. Median number of cycles was 3 (range 1-12). Treatment was well tolerated but notable adverse effects included nausea, fatigue, rash, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. One patient experienced febrile neutropenia while another had pulmonary infiltrates (differential diagnosis included drug toxicity versus infection). Thrombocytopenia was the most common reason for dose reduction of romidepsin (to 12mg/m2) or its omission on day 8, 15 or 22. In 3 patients, azacitidine and romidepsin were used to achieve remission prior to allogeneic transplant (range of cycles 1-3), with all 3 patients were in CR at their last disease assessment. One patient died of transplant related mortality 8 months after his allogeneic stem cell transplant. There was 1 patient with AITL (treatment naïve) noted to have progression of disease at first imaging following 2 cycles of romidepsin and azacitidine. On the day of her PET/CT, she was however diagnosed with symptomatic Covid19 infection and was hospitalized. A repeat PET/CT 6 weeks later (without any additional lymphoma treatment) revealed PR. CONCLUSIONS Subcutaneous azacitidine and romidepsin administered in a 'real-world' situation is highly effective in patients with relapsed PTCL with tolerable toxicity, and can be used to successfully bridge patients to stem cell transplant. Notably, the efficacy was similar to the one reported on a clinical study with oral azacitidine and romidepsin. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kalac: Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Research Funding; Guidepoint: Consultancy; GLG: Consultancy. Tam: Beigene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Loxo: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Montanari: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. O'Connor: Servier: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Myeloid Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kymera: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Marchi: BMS: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Kymera Therapeutics: Other: Scientific Advisor.

scholarly journals Real-World Survival Among Patients with Intermediate- to High-Risk Myelofibrosis in the United States: Impact of Ruxolitinib Approval

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 46-47
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Shreekant Parasuraman ◽  
Jingbo Yu ◽  
Anne Shah ◽  
Shambhavi Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Approval Time ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Death Date

Background The myeloproliferative neoplasm myelofibrosis (MF) is associated with reduced overall survival (OS) compared with the general population (Hultcrantz M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30[24]:2995-3001; Price GL, et al. PLoS One. 2014;9[3]:e90299). The Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in November 2011 for the treatment of adult patients with intermediate- or high-risk MF based on data from the phase 3 COMFORT trials, which showed significantly improved OS in patients who received RUX (Verstovsek S, et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10:156). Understanding the clinical benefit of RUX in real-world practice requires an understanding of changes in patient outcomes for those exposed to RUX compared with those never exposed to RUX, both before and after approval. The aim of this analysis was to assess the OS of patients newly diagnosed with intermediate- to high-risk MF before RUX approval, and for those who were RUX-unexposed vs -exposed in the post-RUX approval time frame. Study Design and Methods All data from the Medicare Fee-for-Service claims database (Parts A/B/D) from January 2010 to December 2017 were used to identify patients who were ≥65 years old (intermediate-1 or higher risk MF due to age) with ≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient claims with a documented MF diagnosis. The index date was the date of the first qualifying MF claim; ≥12 months of pre-index continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment was required. Patients with evidence of an MF diagnosis ≤12 months before the index date were excluded. Patients with a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, hematologic malignancies (leukemias, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas), or solid tumors either ≤12 months before, on, or any time after index were also excluded in a stepwise manner. The study sample was classified into 3 groups: patients diagnosed with MF pre-RUX approval (index year 2010-2011; no post-index exposure to RUX); those diagnosed with MF post-RUX approval and unexposed to RUX (index year 2012-2017); and those diagnosed with MF post-RUX approval and exposed to RUX (index year 2012-2017). One-year survival rate and risk of mortality were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. OS was measured from the index date until death or end of follow-up. Patients without a death date were censored at disenrollment or the end of the study period, whichever occurred first. Results Among eligible patients with an MF diagnosis (N=1677), median age was 78 years, 39.8% were male, and 84.1% were white. The analysis included 278 patients diagnosed pre-RUX approval (all RUX-unexposed) and 1399 diagnosed post-RUX approval (RUX-unexposed, n=1127; RUX-exposed, n=272). Median follow-up for the pre- and post-RUX approval groups was 12.5 and 11.3 mo (RUX-unexposed, 10.2 mo; RUX-exposed, 14.0 mo), respectively. In the pre-RUX approval group, 119 (42.8%) patients had a valid death date compared with 436 (31.2%) in the post-RUX approval group (RUX unexposed, n=382 [33.9%]; RUX exposed, n=54 [19.9%]). The 1-year survival rate (95% CI) was 55.6% (49.4%-61.3%) for the pre-RUX approval group, 72.5% (69.5%-75.2%) for the post-RUX approval RUX-unexposed group, and 82.3% (76.7%-86.7%) for the post-RUX approval RUX-exposed group (Figure). The risk of mortality was lowest among RUX-exposed patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.50; P<0.0001 vs the pre-RUX approval group). Patients in the post-RUX approval group who had never been exposed to RUX also had a lower risk of mortality, although less pronounced than RUX-exposed patients, compared with the pre-RUX approval group (adjusted HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.80; P<0.0001). Conclusions In this real-world study of US patients diagnosed with intermediate- or high-risk MF, 1-year OS was improved in patients diagnosed after RUX approval compared with before RUX approval. Notably, in the post-RUX approval time frame, 1-year OS was greater for those who received RUX than for those who did not receive RUX. These findings complement the survival benefit results demonstrated in the COMFORT studies using real-world data. Disclosures Verstovsek: Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Parasuraman:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yu:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah:Avalere Health: Current Employment. Kumar:Avalere Health: Current Employment; Incyte Corporation: Other: Avalere Health is a paid consultant of Incyte Corporation. Xi:Avalere Health: Current Employment; Incyte Corporation: Other: Avalere Health is a paid consultant of Incyte Corporation. Harrison:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma Corp: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Real-World Effectiveness of Voxelotor for Treating Sickle Cell Disease in the US

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 25-25
Author(s):  
Ahmar Urooj Zaidi ◽  
Thokozeni Lipato ◽  
Ofelia A. Alvarez ◽  
Alexander Lonshteyn ◽  
Derek Weycker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Us

Background: Until late 2019, few treatments had been approved by the FDA for treating sickle cell disease (SCD). Voxelotor (Oxbryta®) is a sickle hemoglobin-polymerization inhibitor approved by the FDA in November 2019 for treatment of SCD in adults and adolescents aged ≥12 years under an accelerated approval based on results of the pivotal HOPE study. In HOPE, voxelotor increased average hemoglobin (Hb) by 1.1 g/dL from baseline in patients with 1-10 vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) in the previous year and a Hb level between 5.5 and 10.5 g/dL who were not transfusion dependent. Of the participants on voxelotor 1500 mg, 51% had a Hb response >1.0 g/dL at week 24 (Vichinsky et al, NEJM 2019). This study sought to assess the real-world effectiveness of voxelotor based on data during the first 6 months post FDA approval. Methods: Data on medical and pharmacy claims for patients who were aged ≥12 years and receiving voxelotor from December 2019 to May 2020 were obtained from the Symphony Health claims dataset. For each patient, the date of the first voxelotor claim was defined as the "index date." Patients with at least 1 year's data prior to the index date were included in the analyses. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized descriptively. Standardized annualized rates of transfusions and VOCs per patient per year (PPPY) prior to and after voxelotor initiation were compared. A subset of patients in the Symphony Health claims dataset had Hb lab data available. Patients with at least 1 Hb result within 30 days prior to the index date and at least 1 Hb result after the index date were included for Hb analyses. For these patients, change in Hb and the percentage of patients achieving a >1 g/dL increase in Hb were summarized. Confidence intervals and P values for changes in outcomes were based on bootstrapping. Results: As of May 31, 2020, 1275 patients from the Symphony Health claims datasets were identified who received voxelotor (40% male, mean age 35.7 years). In the year prior to voxelotor initiation, 715 (56.1%) of these patients received hydroxyurea, 121 (9.5%) received L-glutamine, 166 (13.0%) received at least 1 transfusion, 17 (1.3%) were on chronic transfusion (≥8 transfusions per year), and 681 (53.4%) had 1 or more VOCs. Mean (SD) follow-up was 64.9 (40.7) days. Among 1275 patients, 175 and 52 patients had at least 1 Hb level measurement during the 1 year prior to and after voxelotor initiation, respectively. Among the subset of patients with their Hb level tested within 30 days prior to the index date and at least 1 Hb level after index date (n=22), the baseline average Hb level was 8.0 g/dL (SD 1.4, median 7.9 g/dL, range 5.0-11.8 g/dL). Mean increase in Hb from baseline was 1.1-1.3 g/dL (Table 1) depending on the approach used to calculate Hb levels after voxelotor initiation; 55% (95% CI 32%-77%) of patients achieved a Hb increase >1 g/dL after voxelotor initiation. Among all 1275 patients, mean (SD) overall transfusion rates declined from 0.45 (1.67) PPPY pre-index to 0.31 (1.88) post-index, a change of -0.14 PPPY (P=0.005). Among 169 patients who received at least 1 transfusion in the year prior to initiation of voxelotor, the transfusion rate dropped from 3.39 (3.34) to 1.75 (4.30) PPPY, a change of -1.64 PPPY (P<0.001). Among 17 patients receiving chronic transfusions, the transfusion rate dropped from 11.29 (3.12) to 6.74 (7.37) PPPY, a change of -4.56 PPPY (P=0.013) (Table 2). After voxelotor initiation, the annualized rates of VOC were numerically reduced from 3.86 (6.69) to 3.64 (8.54) (P=0.248). To address the potential bias from the relatively short follow-up duration, similar results of transfusion and VOC rates were observed among patients with at least 30 days of follow-up or when only events within 3 months prior to index date were considered. Conclusions: Based on the first 6 months' data after the approval of voxelotor in the US, in real-world practice, voxelotor increases Hb by at least 1 g/dL, consistent with the HOPE randomized controlled trial results. Evidence suggests that transfusion rates decreased after voxelotor initiation. A favorable downward trend in VOC rates was also observed. This real-world evidence provides additional support for the use of this novel therapy in the treatment of hemolytic anemia and its associated complications in the SCD population. Further evaluation with a larger sample size and longer follow-up will help to confirm these findings. Disclosures Zaidi: Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cyclerion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Imara: Consultancy, Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Emmaus Life Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria. Alvarez:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonshteyn:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weycker:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding. Pham:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Delea:Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Agodoa:Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cong:Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy.

Abstract 17088: In-Hospital Complications and Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker Implantation: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis From Nationwide Database

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Moghniuddin Mohammed ◽  
Amit Noheria ◽  
Seth Sheldon ◽  
Madhu Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Real World ◽  
Electronic Device ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Leadless Pacemaker ◽  
Ventricular Lead ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After

Introduction: There are no randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of leadless pacemaker (L-PPM) implantation with transvenous pacemaker (TV-PPM) and there is scarcity of data on real world outcomes. Methods: We queried National Inpatient Sample to identify all adult patients who had primary discharge diagnosis of conduction disorders or tachy-arrhythmias and excluded patients who had a concomitant procedure for valve replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting, ablation and/or cardiac implantable electronic device removal so that complications can be attributed to the pacemaker implantation. We included only procedures from November 2016 to December 2017 as Micra was the only available L-PPM during that period. For the comparison cohort we selected patients, during the same time period, who had a procedure code for single chamber pacemaker implantation in conjunction with right ventricular lead placement. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching and the variables used for matching are marked with asterisk in Table 1. All the codes used to identify complications has been previously validated from the Micra Post-approval registry and Coverage with Evidence Study. Results: Total of 1,305 patients for L-PPM and 13,905 patients in the TV-PPM group were included. Baseline characteristics with standardized mean difference before and after matching are shown in Table 1. Briefly, patients in L-PPM group were younger but had higher co-morbidities compared to TV-PPM group. The complications before and after matching are shown in Table 2. Conclusions: In conclusion, we found no significant difference between in-hospital complications after propensity score matching, with the exception of deep venous thrombosis. There was no difference between length of stay but cost for L-PPM was significantly higher. In this real-world analysis, we found that the leadless PPM implantation is safe in comparison to transvenous PPM.

scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes with Fedratinib Therapy in Patients Who Discontinued Ruxolitinib for Primary Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3645-3645
Author(s):  
Francesco Passamonti ◽  
Quynh Do ◽  
Youbei Lou ◽  
Manoj Chevli ◽  
Pranav Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Primary Myelofibrosis ◽  
Index Patient ◽  
Pharmacological Therapy ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Once Daily

Abstract Introduction: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a rare myeloproliferative disorder in whichdysregulation of the janus kinase 2 (JAK2) hematopoiesis-signaling pathway disruptsbone marrow production of blood cells, leading to anemia, fatigue and splenomegaly.Until recently, the dual JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib (RUX), has been the onlyapproved pharmacological therapy for intermediate/high-risk MF. However, manypatients receiving RUX experience a suboptimal response or develop cytopenia, leadingto discontinuation. Fedratinib (FEDR), an oral, selective inhibitor with activity againstwild-type and mutationally activated JAK2 and the receptor tyrosine kinase FLT3, wasapproved in the US in August 2019. The real-world effectiveness of FEDR in the post-RUX setting has not yet been assessed. Aim: To assess the baseline characteristics and survival outcomes among patientsdiagnosed with MF who discontinued RUX and were subsequently treated with FEDR ornot. Methods : Adult US patients who received RUX after an initial diagnosis of primary MF(identified by ICD-9/10-CM codes) were identified using Flatiron Health's nationwideelectronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Patients were stratified by whetherthey subsequently received post-ruxolitinib fedratinib (FEDR group) or not (non-FEDRgroup). The non-FEDR group was further stratified by time of RUX discontinuation(before [non-FEDR subgroup A] and after [non-FEDR subgroup B] US approval of FEDRin August 2019) to enable a contemporaneous comparison with the FEDR group. Indexdate was the start of FEDR therapy in the FEDR group, and last date of RUX therapy inthe non-FEDR groups. Patients were included if they had ≥2 recorded visits in theFlatiron network on or after January 1, 2011- Oct 31, 2020; were aged ≥18 years atindex; had ≥1 months' data before and also after index; and had no record of receivingunclassified clinical study drugs prior to index. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were assessed at index. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time fromindex until death or censoring, and was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Landmarksurvival was defined as the proportion of patients who survived at a given point.Association of baseline variables and survival were assessed by Cox proportionalhazards model and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Overall, 229 MF patients were evaluated (FEDR group: n=70; non-FEDRgroup: n=159). The median age at index for the FEDR group and non-FEDR group was71.0 and 70.0 years, 55.7% and 50.3% were female, 64.3% and 68.6% were white, andmedian follow-up from index was 7.0 and 6.0 months, respectively. Among patients withEastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) at index, 90.2%(46/51) and 74.3% (84/113) had an ECOG score of 0-1, respectively (Table). Median(range) duration of FEDR therapy in the FEDR group was 3.7 (0-12.2) months; 47.1%(33/70) of patients receiving FEDR initiated therapy with 400 mg FEDR once daily, and21.4% (15/70) initiated with 200 mg FEDR once daily. Median OS was not reached in theFEDR group and was 17 months in the non-FEDR group. Landmark survival in theFEDR and non-FEDR groups was 91.3% and 76.5% at 3 months, and 71.6% and 53.5%at 12 months, respectively. In the non-FEDR subgroup B, the corresponding survivalrates at 3 months and 12 months were 75.0% and 47.9%. The Cox proportional hazardsmodel suggested that being male, 'other' (non-white, non-black/African-American, non-Asian, non-missing) race, Charlson comorbidity index ≥1, ECOG score 2-4, and bodymass index <18.5 kg/m were significantly associated with poorer survival. Conclusions: This real-world analysis demonstrates that these two groups of patientswith primary MF who had received prior RUX had broadly comparable baselinecharacteristics. FEDR appeared to be associated with improved survival up to 1 yearafter index compared with non-FEDR therapy. When the FEDR group and non-FEDR Bsubgroup were compared, the differences in survival rate remained. FEDR may offersubstantially improved survival probability in patients receiving post-ruxolitinib therapy of primary MF in routine clinical practice. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Passamonti: Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Do: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lou: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chevli: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abraham: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment.

Comprehensive real-world evidence research in stage III and IV melanoma: Evaluation of a cohort of patients treated at a Portuguese institution.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18774-e18774
Author(s):  
Ivo Julião ◽  
Jose Luis Cunha ◽  
Patricia Redondo ◽  
Jessica Rodrigues ◽  
Tiago Figueiredo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Adequate Treatment ◽  
Real World Evidence

e18774 Background: Malignant melanoma (MM) is one of the most aggressive skin cancers and its incidence has been increasing worldwide. Deep understanding of patient characteristics and the course of the disease, specially through the evaluation of real-world evidence, is extremely relevant for an adequate treatment approach and better outcomes. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate demographic and clinical characteristics and also treatment outcomes of patients with stage III and IV MM, treated at a Portuguese institution. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with de novo MM stage III/IV or that evolved from earlier MM stages, between 2015 and 2017 (considered the index date). Patients were followed until 12/31/2019. Demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics were evaluated. Survival was assessed, from the index date, using the Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare groups. Results: We included 215 patients with a median age of 66 years (20-96) and 50.2% (n = 108) were male. At index date, 63.7% (n = 137) were stage III. From those, 41.6% (n = 57) progressed to stage IV during follow-up. At diagnosis, the majority of patients had ulceration (53.3%; n = 119), normal LDH ( < 248 U/L; 56.3%; n = 121) and from 110 patients tested for BRAF, 45.4% (n = 50) had a mutation. In earlier stages, 41.8% (n = 81) performed sentinel LN only and from those 61.7% (n = 50) had latter metastatic disease. Complete LND was performed in 49% (n = 95) and 58.9% (n = 56) had a distant relapse. Brain metastasis were diagnosed in 28.4% (n = 61) of the patients, and 50.8% (n = 31) were not eligible for any treatment due to poor clinical status. Systemic treatment was performed in 70 patients with advanced disease. In 1st line, 34 (48.6%) patients underwent anti-PD-1, 28 (40.0%) BRAF/MEKi, 5 (7.1%) BRAFi and 3 (4.3%) chemotherapy. A 2nd line treatment was performed in 21 (30.0%) patients and 2 (9.5%) underwent 3rd line treatment. With a median follow-up of 29 months OS for all patients at 24 months was 54.9% (95% CI; 48.6-62.0): 69.3% (95% CI; 62.0-77.5) for stage III patients and 29.5% (95% CI; 20.9-41.6) for stage IV patients. OS was worst for known risk factors (ulceration, mitotic rate and LDH). OS at 24 months for patients under systemic treatment was 37.4% (95% CI; 26.9-52.0), with no differences between immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Finally, 22 patients were submitted to limb perfusion with an OS of 58.1% (95% CI; 41.2-81.9) at 24 months and a median PFS of 7.4 months (95% CI; 3.9-11.3). Conclusions: Analysis of real-world data is a solid tool in the evaluation, development and improvement of treatment strategies. Demographic and clinical characteristics are comparable to those of other studied cohorts. Longer follow-up of this population and the inclusion of new patients submitted to contemporary approaches will allow improving knowledge and care for melanoma patients in Portugal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document