Background and aims
There has been no reliable severity system based on the prognosis to guide therapeutic strategies for patients with pyrrolizidine alkaloid (PA)-induced hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (HSOS). We aimed to create a novel Drum Tower Severity Scoring (DTSS) system for these patients to guide therapy.
172 Patients with PA-HSOS who received supportive care and anticoagulation therapy in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from January 2008 to December 2020 were enrolled and analyzed retrospectively. These patients were randomized into a training or validation set in a 3:1 ratio. Next, we established and validated the newly developed DTSS system.
Analysis identified a predictive formula: logit (P) = 0.004 × aspartate aminotransferase (AST, U/L) + 0.019 × total bilirubin (TB, μmol/L) − 0.571 × fibrinogen (FIB, g/L) − 0.093 × peak portal vein velocity (PVV, cm/s) + 1.122. Next, we quantified the above variables to establish the DTSS system. For the training set, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) (n = 127) was 0.787 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.706–0.868; p < 0.001]. With a lower cut-off value of 6.5, the sensitivity and negative predictive value for predicting no response to supportive care and anticoagulation therapy were 94.7% and 88.0%, respectively. When applying a high cut-off value of 10.5, the specificity was 92.9% and the positive predictive value was 78.3%. For the validation set, the system performed stable with an AUC of 0.808.
The DTSS system can predict the outcome of supportive care and anticoagulation in PA-HSOS patients with satisfactory accuracy by evaluating severity, and may have potential significance for guiding therapy.
Introduction:Aducanumab was granted accelerated approval with a conflicting evidence base, near-unanimous FDA Advisory Committee vote to reject approval, and a widely criticized launch price of $56,000 per year. The objective of this analysis was to estimate its cost-effectiveness.Methods:We developed a Markov model to compare aducanumab in addition to supportive care to supportive care alone over a lifetime horizon. Results were presented from both the health system and modified societal perspective. The model tracked the severity of disease and the care setting. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, and a threshold analysis was conducted to estimate at what price aducanumab would meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.Results:Using estimates of effectiveness based on pooling of data from both pivotal trials, patients treated with aducanumab spent four more months in earlier stages of AD. Over the lifetime time horizon, treating a patient with aducanumab results in 0.154 more QALYs gained per patient and 0.201 evLYGs per patient from the health care system perspective, with additional costs of approximately $204,000 per patient. The incremental outcomes were similar for the modified societal perspective. At the list price of $56,000 per year, the cost-effectiveness ranged from $1.02 million per evLYG to $1.33 million per QALY gained from the health care system perspective; and from $938,000 per evLYG to $1.27 million per QALY gained in the modified societal perspective. The annual price to meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds ranged from $2,950 to $8,360, which represents a discount of 85-95% off from the annual launch price set by the manufacturer. Using estimates of effectiveness based only on the trial that suggested a benefit, the mean incremental cost was greater than $400,000 per QALY gained.Discussion:Patients treated with aducanumab received minimal improvements in health outcomes at considerable cost. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that far exceeded commonly used value thresholds, even under optimistic treatment effectiveness assumptions. These findings are subject to the substantial uncertainty regarding whether aducanumab provides any true net health benefit, but evidence available currently suggests that an annual price of aducanumab of $56,000 is not in reasonable alignment with its clinical benefits.
PURPOSE: Injectable cytotoxics may be formulated with ethanol. This study sought to quantify the amount of ethanol exposure during chemotherapy infusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first reviewed the antineoplastic drugs (Anatomical Therapeutic and Chemical code L01) and oncologic supportive care drugs (eg, antiemetics) currently available in France, to identify preparations containing ethanol. The amount of ethanol in the final chemotherapy preparation was calculated. Next, we performed a 2-year, single-center, retrospective analysis of injectable antineoplastic drug compounding in routine clinical practice in a French university medical center. Finally, we reviewed our results with regard to the literature data. RESULTS: Ten of the 60 cytotoxic products on the market contained ethanol at concentrations of up to 790 mg/mL, depending on the drug, formulation, and supplier. Several final preparations contained more than 3 g of ethanol per infusion (the maximum recommended by the European Medicines Agency); this was notably the case for gemcitabine, paclitaxel (up to 20 g ethanol per injection, for both), and etoposide (up to 50 g ethanol per infusion). The analysis of our compounding activity showed that 3,172 (4.99%) of the 63,613 chemotherapy preparations (notably paclitaxel) contained more than 3 g of ethanol. None of the oncologic supportive care drugs contained ethanol. CONCLUSION: Patients are exposed to ethanol during the infusion of antineoplastic drugs. With a view to better patient care, physicians and pharmacists should carefully evaluate the risk of ethanol exposure throughout the course of cytotoxic drug treatment.
The number of older and frail patients has greatly increased in nephrology departments. Traditional treatment options have become inappropriate because they seem unable to achieve goals such as quality of life. Principles from palliative care have been brought to chronic kidney disease management with good results; thus a new way to approach these patients has been reported. In Portugal, in 2011, Direcção Geral de Saúde published a guideline to substantiate supportive care as an option, for certain patients, in certain circumstances. The best evidence known at the time was stated and the conditions that should be met were regulated, but limited information was given about practical implementation of what. In this article we describe our experience with a supportive care program from planning to the implementation steps, since 2015. We reflect on the flowchart, the barriers, the conquests, and the data up to the end of 2020.
Men with localized prostate cancer often experience urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal symptoms; general distress; pain; fatigue; and sleep disturbance. For men in an intimate relationship, these symptoms disrupt couples’ relationships and intimacy. The symptoms also reduce quality of life for both men and their partners, who are often their primary caregivers. Management of the negative effects of cancer and its treatment is a significantly under-addressed supportive care need for these men and their intimate partners. To address these unmet supportive care needs, our interdisciplinary team developed and pilot tested the usability and feasibility of an evidence-based, couple-focused, tailored eHealth intervention, “Prostate Cancer Education & Resources for Couples” (PERC). Based on the adapted stress and coping theoretical framework and developed with stakeholder involvement, PERC aims to improve quality of life for both men and their partners by enhancing their positive appraisals, self-efficacy, social support, and healthy behaviors for symptom management.
We will test the efficacy of PERC using a population-based, geographically and demographically diverse cohort in a randomized controlled trial. Primary aim: Assess if patients and partners receiving PERC will report greater improvement in their cancer-related quality of life scores than those in the control group (usual care plus the National Cancer Institute prostate cancer website) at 4, 8, and 12 months post-baseline. Secondary aim: Test if patients and partners in PERC will report significantly more positive appraisals and higher levels of coping resources at follow-ups than those in the control group. Exploratory aim: Determine if patient race and ethnicity, education, type of treatment, or couples’ relationship quality moderate the effects of PERC on patient and partner QOL at follow-ups.
This study will provide a novel model for self-managing chronic illness symptoms that impact couples’ relationships, intimacy, and quality of life. It addresses the National Institute of Nursing Research’s goal to develop and test new strategies for symptom self-management to help patients and caregivers better manage their illness and improve quality of life. It also responds to calls for programs from the Institute of Medicine and American Cancer Society to address treatment-related effects and improve survivors’ QOL.