Search

Aim: Describe treatment and dosing patterns of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab combination therapy (lenva+pembro) among endometrial cancer (EC) patients in US clinical practice. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort study among adults with EC initiating lenva+pembro in second line (2L) or third line and later (≥3L) between 17 September 2019 and 30 June 2021. Results: 110 patients initiated lenva+pembro in 2L and 135 patients in ≥3L. Majority of patients initiated lenva+pembro at label-recommended starting doses/interval. Less than half changed lenvatinib dose over time. At median follow-up of 7.3 and 8.7 months, median (95% CI) duration of therapy was 5.1 (4.7–6.1) and 5.8 (4.2–7.3) months for patients in 2L and ≥3L, respectively. Conclusion: Lenva+pembro was mostly initiated at label-recommended dose. This study looked at details of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab combination treatment among patients with endometrial cancer (EC) in the USA. Specifically, these patients had received prior chemotherapy or hormone therapy before starting lenvatinib and pembrolizumab. Most patients started lenvatinib and pembrolizumab at the dose recommended by the product label and received the next pembrolizumab injection within the recommended timeframe. Over time, more than half of the patients did not change the dose of lenvatinib, and most patients had the same dose of pembrolizumab. On average, patients were treated with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for 5–6 months. This study showed that in general, patients were taking lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for treatment of EC as recommended by product labels. Our retrospective study of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab using IQVIA's claims database shows that most patients initiated at label-recommended dose, and majority did not have a dose change. At median follow-up of 7.3 and 8.7 months, the median (95% CI) duration of therapy was 5.1 (4.7–6.1) and 5.8 (4.2–7.3) months for patients in 2L and ≥3L, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Detection of acute HIV infection (AHI) with pooled nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) following HIV testing is feasible. However, cost-effectiveness analyses to guide policy around AHI screening are lacking; particularly after more sensitive third-generation antibody screening and rapid testing. Methods and Findings: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of pooled NAAT screening that assessed the prevention benefits of identification and notification of persons with AHI and cases averted compared with repeat antibody testing at different intervals. Effectiveness data were derived from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention AHI study conducted in three settings: municipal sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, a community clinic serving a population of men who have sex with men, and HIV counseling and testing sites. Our analysis included a micro-costing study of NAAT and a mathematical model of HIV transmission. Cost-effectiveness ratios are reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in US dollars from the societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key variables, including AHI positivity rates, antibody testing frequency, symptomatic detection of AHI, and costs. Pooled NAAT for AHI screening following annual antibody testing had cost-effectiveness ratios exceeding US$200,000 per QALY gained for the municipal STD clinics and HIV counseling and testing sites and was cost saving for the community clinic. Cost-effectiveness ratios increased substantially if the antibody testing interval decreased to every 6 months and decreased to cost-saving if the testing interval increased to every 5 years. NAAT was cost saving in the community clinic in all situations. Results were particularly sensitive to AHI screening yield. Conclusions: Pooled NAAT screening for AHI following negative third-generation antibody or rapid tests is not costeffective at recommended antibody testing intervals for high-risk persons except in very high-incidence settings. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction Acute HIV infection (AHI) is the stage of disease immediately after HIV acquisition and before HIV antibodies are detectable, when viral replication and shedding peak [1]. Because persons with [...]

Background: The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative pathogens in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has increased. In the absence of timely information on the infecting pathogens and their susceptibilities, local or regional epidemiology may guide initial empirical therapy and reduce treatment failure, length of stay and mortality. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of hospitalized US patients with cIAI at risk of infection with resistant pathogens. Methods: We used a decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of persons infected with nosocomial gram-negative cIAI treated empirically with either ceftolozane/ tazobactam + metronidazole or piperacillin/tazobactam. Pathogen isolates were randomly drawn from the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database, a surveillance database of non-duplicate bacterial isolates collected from patients with cIAIs in medical centers in the USA from 2011 to 2013. Susceptibility to initial therapy was based on the measured susceptibilities reported in the PACTS database determined using standard broth micro-dilution methods as described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Results: Our model results, with baseline resistance levels from the PACTS database, indicated that ceftolozane/ tazobactam + metronidazole dominated piperacillin/tazobactam, with lower costs ($44,226/patient vs. $44,811/patient respectively) and higher QALYs (12.85/patient vs. 12.70/patient, respectively). Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole remained the dominant choice in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Based on surveillance data, ceftolozane/tazobactam is more likely to be an appropriate empiric therapy for cIAI in the US. Results from a decision-analytic simulation model indicate that use of ceftolozane/ tazobactam + metronidazole would result in cost savings and improves QALYs, compared with piperacillin/tazobactam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in recurrent/advanced endometrial cancer in Europe are not well known. Materials & methods: Endometrial Cancer Health Outcomes-Europe-First-Line is a multicenter, retrospective chart review study conducted in the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Spain. Patients diagnosed with recurrent/advanced endometrial cancer who initiated first-line systemic therapy between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2020 were eligible. Results: Among 242 patients, median age was 69 years and 82.2% had stage IIIB-IV disease. In first-line, most patients received platinum-based chemotherapy (78.9%); others received endocrine therapy (6.2%), taxane monotherapy (5.8%) and nonplatinum or taxane-based chemotherapy (4.1%). Median real-world progression-free survival since first-line initiation was 10.8 months and median overall survival was 20.7 months. Conclusion: Poor prognosis with platinum-based first-line chemotherapy suggests significant unmet medical need.