Febrile neutropenia costly in the US

2012 ◽  
Vol 661 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19150-e19150
Author(s):  
Craig H. Reynolds ◽  
Jyoti D. Patel ◽  
Edward B. Garon ◽  
Mark R. Olsen ◽  
Philip D. Bonomi ◽  
...  

e19150 Background: AAs with lung cancer (LC) have shorter survival than Caucasians (Cs). Despite a higher LC incidence among AAs than Cs (74.7 vs 64.4/100,000), AAs are underrepresented in clinical trials. There are no reports of randomized LC prospective trials reporting AA results. In POINTBREAK, we enrolled AAs at the same rate as the US incidence of NSCLC in AAs. We report efficacy/safety of AAs in both arms and efficacy/safety of AA and C within the Pem Arm. Methods: Data from AAs and Cs enrolled in POINTBREAK were analyzed. AAs in both arms were evaluated in a pre-specified analysis. Hazard ratio and p-values were derived from a multivariate Cox-PH model by adjusting stratification factors. Results: Of 939 randomized pts, 94 were AA and 805 were C. Demographics were comparable between AA/intent-to-treat populations (%): 56/53 male, 65/52 ≤65 years, 87/88 ever smoker, 86/90 stage IV, 43/44 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0. The table shows efficacy results. Among AAs, drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) include (Pem Arm %/Pac Arm %): anemia (7.3/0), thrombocytopenia (9.8/4.0), fatigue (4.9/4.0), neutropenia (31.7/44.0), febrile neutropenia (0/4.0). Within Pem Arm, drug-related grade 3/4 AEs (AA%/ C%) were anemia (7.3/15.9), thrombocytopenia (9.8/25.5), fatigue (4.9/11.5), neutropenia (31.7/25.3), febrile neutropenia (0/1.6). Conclusions: Median OS for Pem Arm was not superior to Pac Arm in AAs. Within Pem Arm, there were no significant differences between AAs and Cs for efficacy outcomes. Both regimens were tolerable in AAs. Clinical trial information: NCT00762034. [Table: see text]


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 809-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon L. Michels ◽  
Rich L. Barron ◽  
Matthew W. Reynolds ◽  
Karen Smoyer Tomic ◽  
Jingbo Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Hershman ◽  
Dana Hurley ◽  
Mitchell Wong ◽  
Vicki A. Morrison ◽  
Jennifer L. Malin

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document