Search

Background: Continuous oral targeted therapies (OTT) represent a major economic burden on the Canadian healthcare system, due to their high cost and administration until disease progression/toxicity. The recent introduction of venetoclax-based fixed-duration combination therapies has the potential to reduce such costs. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and the cost of CLL in Canada with the introduction of fixed OTT. Methods: A state transition Markov model was developed and included five health states: watchful waiting, first-line treatment, relapsed/refractory treatment, and death. The number of CLL patients and total cost associated with CLL management in Canada for both continuous- and fixed-treatment-duration OTT were projected from 2020 to 2025. Costs included drug acquisition, follow-up/monitoring, adverse event, and palliative care. Results: The CLL prevalence in Canada is projected to increase from 15,512 to 19,517 between 2020 and 2025. Annual costs were projected at C$880.7 and C$703.1 million in 2025, for continuous and fixed OTT scenarios, respectively. Correspondingly, fixed OTT would provide a total cost reduction of C$213.8 million (5.94%) from 2020 to 2025, compared to continuous OTT. Conclusions: Fixed OTT is expected to result in major reductions in cost burden over the 5-year projection, compared to continuous OTT.

Background: Continuous oral targeted therapies (OTT) represent a major economic burden on the Canadian healthcare system, due to their high cost and administration until disease progression/toxicity. The recent introduction of venetoclax-based fixed-duration combination therapies has the potential to reduce such costs. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and the cost of CLL in Canada with the introduction of fixed OTT. Methods: A state transition Markov model was developed and included five health states: watchful waiting, first-line treatment, relapsed/refractory treatment, and death. The number of CLL patients and total cost associated with CLL management in Canada for both continuous- and fixed-treatment-duration OTT were projected from 2020 to 2025. Costs included drug acquisition, follow-up/monitoring, adverse event, and palliative care. Results: The CLL prevalence in Canada is projected to increase from 15,512 to 19,517 between 2020 and 2025. Annual costs were projected at C$880.7 and C$703.1 million in 2025, for continuous and fixed OTT scenarios, respectively. Correspondingly, fixed OTT would provide a total cost reduction of C$213.8 million (5.94%) from 2020 to 2025, compared to continuous OTT. Conclusions: Fixed OTT is expected to result in major reductions in cost burden over the 5-year projection, compared to continuous OTT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare that they have no competing interests to disclose.

Introduction: Oral targeted therapies (OTTs) are widely used for cancer management. However, there is no consensus on OTT dose adaptation in older patients with cancer. Methods: This noninterventional, retrospective study was a real‐life assessment of dose adaptation for six OTTs (afatinib, everolimus, palbociclib, pazopanib, sorafenib and sunitinib), at baseline and during treatment, and the reasons for the changes, in ≥70‐year‐old patients treated between February 2016 and August 2019. Data were compared with univariate models fitted with all variables. Results: Among the 986 patients treated with OTT, the group of ≥70‐year‐old patients (n = 122) received afatinib (15.6%), everolimus (14.8%), palbociclib (50.8%), pazopanib (9.8%), sorafenib (5.8%) or sunitinib (3.2%). At baseline, the prescribed OTT dose was adapted (reduction) in 29% of ≥70‐year‐old patients (35/122). These 35 patients were significantly older (mean age 80 vs 74 years, P <.001), and more frequently had a performance status score ≥2 (P <.01) than the other patients (n = 87). In the standard dose group, higher toxicity grades (P =.18) and subsequent dose reduction (41% of patients, 36/87) tended to be more frequent compared with the baseline adapted dose group (26%, 9/35, P =.1). At the study end, 53% of patients in the whole cohort (65/122) were taking a lower dose than the recommended one. Conclusion: At OTT initiation, dose was adapted in 29% of older adults with cancer, rarely after a formal oncogeriatric evaluation (6.5% of all patients). In the absence of recommendations, clinical studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baseline OTT dose reduction in older adults with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous oral targeted therapy (OTT) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) represents an effective therapy but also a major economic burden on the healthcare system. This study aimed to estimate future direct costs, along with the prevalence, of CLL in the era of continuous OTT in Canada. Methods: The economic burden of OTT was modelled and compared to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), for CLL treatment. The burden was assessed/projected from 2011 to 2025. For the OTT scenario, CIT was considered the standard of care before 2015, while OTT was considered standard of care for patients with either unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable (IGHV) or del(17p)/TP53 mutations starting in 2015 and, from 2020 onwards, for all first-line treatments except for patients with mutated IGHV. A Markov model was developed including four health states: watchful-waiting, first-line treatment, relapse and death. Costs of therapy, follow-up/monitoring and adverse events were included. Key clinical parameters were extracted from pivotal clinical trials. Results: As incidence rates and rate of survival are increasing, the prevalence of CLL in Canada is projected to increase 1.8-fold, from 8301 patients in 2011 to 14,654 by 2025. Correspondingly, the total annual costs of CLL management are predicted to increase 15.7-fold, from $60.8 million to $957.5 million during that same period. Conclusions: Although OTT enhances survival for patients with CLL, it is nonetheless associated with an important economic burden due to the projected vast increase in costs from 2011 to 2025. Changes in clinical strategies, such as implementation of a fixed OTT treatment duration, could help alleviate financial burden.

Abstract Background Currently, oral targeted therapies are known to be effective and are frequently used to treat metastatic cancer patients, but fatigue is a frequently reported early side effect of these treatments. This fatigue may impact the patient’s treatment adherence and result in a negative impact on quality of life. Physical exercise significantly improved the general well-being and quality of life of advanced cancer patients. However, there is no specific physical activity program adapted for patients with advanced disease. Methods QUALIOR is a two-part, randomized, open-label, and multicenter with two arms phase II/III trial. Patients (phase II: n = 120; phase III: n = 312) with metastatic cancer (breast cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, and other cancers [including but not limited to colon cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, or hepatocarcinoma]) treated with a first- or second-line oral targeted therapy without chemotherapy will be included. Patients will be randomized (2:1) to a 3-month supervised home-based standardized physical activity program or to a recommended adapted physical activity (via a booklet). The primary objective of the phase II is to evaluate the feasibility of the supervised program. The primary objective of the phase III is the evaluation of the benefit of the supervised home-based program compare to the recommended program in terms of fatigue and quality of life at 3 months. The secondary objectives aim to evaluate the impact of the supervised program on fatigue over time, pain, physical capacities, psychosocial and cognitive functions, general quality of life, frequency of dose reduction and patients’ adherence to the targeted therapy, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This study will also evaluate the medico-economic impact of supervised program compared to the recommended adapted physical activity program. Discussion The aim of this study is to evaluate home-based physical exercise program for metastatic cancer patients treated with oral targeted therapies to help patients to cope with fatigue and improve quality of life. Trial registration This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov since May 2017 ( NCT03169075 ).

Background: Continuous oral targeted therapy (OTT) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) represents an effective therapy but also a major economic burden on the healthcare system. This study aimed to estimate future direct costs, along with the prevalence, of CLL in the era of continuous OTT in Canada. Methods: The economic burden of OTT was modelled and compared to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), for CLL treatment. The burden was assessed/projected from 2011 to 2025. For the OTT scenario, CIT was considered the standard of care before 2015, while OTT was considered standard of care for patients with either unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable (IGHV) or del(17p)/TP53 mutations starting in 2015 and, from 2020 onwards, for all first-line treatments except for patients with mutated IGHV. A Markov model was developed including four health states: watchful-waiting, first-line treatment, relapse and death. Costs of therapy, follow-up/monitoring and adverse events were included. Key clinical parameters were extracted from pivotal clinical trials. Results: As incidence rates and rate of survival are increasing, the prevalence of CLL in Canada is projected to increase 1.8-fold, from 8301 patients in 2011 to 14,654 by 2025. Correspondingly, the total annual costs of CLL management are predicted to increase 15.7-fold, from $60.8 million to $957.5 million during that same period. Conclusions: Although OTT enhances survival for patients with CLL, it is nonetheless associated with an important economic burden due to the projected vast increase in costs from 2011 to 2025. Changes in clinical strategies, such as implementation of a fixed OTT treatment duration, could help alleviate financial burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, oral targeted therapies are known to be effective and are frequently used to treat metastatic cancer patients, but fatigue is a frequently reported early side effect of these treatments. This fatigue may impact the patient's treatment adherence and result in a negative impact on quality of life. Physical exercise significantly improved the general well-being and quality of life of advanced cancer patients. However, there is no specific physical activity program adapted for patients with advanced disease.Methods: QUALIOR is a two-part, randomized, open-label, and multicenter with two arms phase II/III trial. Patients (phase II: n = 120; phase III: n = 312) with metastatic cancer (breast cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, and other cancers [including but not limited to colon cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, or hepatocarcinoma]) treated with a first- or second-line oral targeted therapy without chemotherapy will be included. Patients will be randomized (2:1) to a 3-month supervised home-based standardized physical activity program or to a recommended adapted physical activity (via a booklet). The primary objective of the phase II is to evaluate the feasibility of the supervised program. The primary objective of the phase III is the evaluation of the benefit of the supervised home-based program compare to the recommended program in terms of fatigue and quality of life at 3 months. The secondary objectives aim to evaluate the impact of the supervised program on fatigue over time, pain, physical capacities, psychosocial and cognitive functions, general quality of life, frequency of dose reduction and patients' adherence to the targeted therapy, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This study will also evaluate the medico-economic impact of supervised program compared to the recommended adapted physical activity program.Discussion: The aim of this study is to evaluate home-based physical exercise program for metastatic cancer patients treated with oral targeted therapies to help patients to cope with fatigue and improve quality of life.Trial Registration: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov since May 2017 ( NCT03169075 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Different target exposures with sunitinib have been proposed in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, such as trough concentrations or AUCs. However, most of the time, rather than therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), clinical evidence is preferred to tailor dosing, i.e., by reducing the dose when treatment-related toxicities show, or increasing dosing if no signs of efficacy are observed. Here, we compared such empirical dose adjustment of sunitinib in mRCC patients, with the parallel dosing proposals of a PK/PD model with TDM support. In 31 evaluable patients treated with sunitinib, 53.8% had an empirical change in dosing after treatment started (i.e., 46.2% decrease in dosing, 7.6% increase in dosing). Clinical benefit was observed in 54.1% patients, including 8.3% with complete response. Overall, 58.1% of patients experienced treatment discontinuation eventually, either because of toxicities or progressive disease. When choosing 50–100 ng/mL trough concentrations as a target exposure (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), 45% patients were adequately exposed. When considering 1200–2150 ng/mL.h as a target AUC (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), only 26% patients were in the desired therapeutic window. TDM with retrospective PK/PD modeling would have suggested decreasing sunitinib dosing in a much larger number of patients as compared with empirical dose adjustment. Indeed, when using target trough concentrations, the model proposed reducing dosing for 61% patients, and up to 84% patients based upon target AUC. Conversely, the model proposed increasing dosing in 9.7% of patients when using target trough concentrations and in 6.5% patients when using target AUC. Overall, TDM with adaptive dosing would have led to tailoring sunitinib dosing in a larger number of patients (i.e., 53.8% vs. 71–91%, depending on the chosen metrics for target exposure) than a clinical-based decision. Interestingly, sunitinib dosing was empirically reduced in 41% patients who displayed early-onset severe toxicities, whereas model-based recommendations would have immediately proposed to reduce dosing in more than 80% of those patients. This observation suggests that early treatment-related toxicities could have been partly avoided using prospective PK/PD modeling with adaptive dosing. Conversely, the possible impact of model-based adapted dosing on efficacy could not be fully evaluated because no clear relationship was found between baseline exposure levels and sunitinib efficacy measured at 3 months.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukemia and is clinically heterogeneous. Integration of oral targeted therapies (OTTs) in the management of CLL has fundamentally altered CLL treatment pathways and improved outcomes for patients with CLL.We review the cost-effectiveness of OTTs in the treatment of CLL. We used MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) terms and keywords to search the National Library of Medicine online MEDLINE database (PubMed) for articles related to cost-effectiveness of OTTs in CLL care.Oral targeted therapies add considerable expense to the treatment of CLL for patients and the health care system. Cost-effectiveness analyses of OTTs are not uniform in their conclusions and depend on patient groups selected for analysis. Given the substantial increase in expense associated with integration of OTTs in CLL treatment, cost reduction methods are needed to ensure equitable access to novel therapies for all patients with CLL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a cure still cannot be expected for metastatic breast cancer, thanks to progressive advances in treatments, life expectancy has been increasing over the past 15 years. This study aims to present the impact on the organisation of patients' management of newly released oral targeted therapies dedicated to metastatic breast cancer and the obstacles to their diffusion. Our work is based on the analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews, conducted with oncology healthcare professionals in three regions of France (2015-2016). It shows three main results. First, the prescription of an oral targeted therapy requires greater collaboration between healthcare professionals than traditional intravenous oncology drugs, which may be challenging. Second, there remain many barriers to the dissemination of oral targeted therapies. Third, taking an oral targeted therapy keeps the patient away from the hospital facility and asks for a strong therapeutic alliance. The management of oral targeted therapies is time-consuming for medical oncologists and disrupts the traditional care pathway. The multiplication of actors involved in patients' management reinforces the slowdown in the deployment and acceptance of therapeutic innovations. More players equal a higher risk of slowdown. Questioning and re-designing hospital organisation and management modalities towards this type of care are critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The adverse effect most commonly reported by patients treated with oral targeted therapies for advanced cancer is the onset of fatigue, which may be a limiting factor in long-term tolerance of these treatments. Adapted physical activity (APA) has a demonstrated its beneficial effect on the level of fatigue experienced by patients treated for localised cancer and, under certain circumstances, has shown an improvement in survival. The majority of studies were conducted in the post-cancer period or during the treatment phase, with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Very few studies have been carried out on patients treated with oral targeted therapies. APA programmes vary in quality in terms of their objectives and the ways in which they are carried out and assessed. Particularly for patients with fatigue who have an advanced illness, it is important to assess supervised, home-based APA programmes. The QUALIOR study, sponsored by Unicancer, is a phase II-III randomised study, with the aim of thoroughly assessing the implementation of a 3-month home-based APA programme for more than 300 patients treated with targeted therapy for an advanced cancer (including breast, kidney and lung cancer plus a diverse cohort) in improving fatigue and quality of life, as well as full-term treatment compliance. A secondary objective is to evaluate progression-free survival. This programme is also assessed for its medico-economic relevance. The feasibility of the APA programme, which has been designed with various intensity levels, is assessed during the phase II study, which will then be continued with a phase III study to measure the programme's efficacy. The final objective is to provide access to supervised APA sessions, specifically aimed at patients treated with these new targeted therapies, within the framework of a supportive care activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Targeted therapy with protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) represents one of the important treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has contributed to improve patients' survival and quality of life significantly. These anticancer drugs are administrated orally in flat-fixed doses despite the well-known large interpatient pharmacokinetic variability and the possible need for dose individualization. To optimize and individualize dosing of PKIs, and thereby increasing the effectiveness and safety of the treatment, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is the most frequently mentioned method. Unlike other areas of medicine, TDM has been rather exceptional in oncological practise since there is a little evidence or no data for concentration-effect relationships of PKIs. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize the pharmacokinetic characteristics of PKIs and provide the evidence supporting the use of TDM for personalised treatment of patients with NSCLC.

Different target exposures with sunitinib have been proposed in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, such as trough concentrations or AUCs. However, most of the time, rather than therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), clinical evidence is preferred to tailor dosing, i.e., by reducing the dose when treatment-related toxicities show, or increasing dosing if no signs of efficacy are observed. Here, we compared such empirical dose adjustment of sunitinib in mRCC patients, with the parallel dosing proposals of a PK/PD model with TDM support. In 31 evaluable patients treated with sunitinib, 53.8% had an empirical change in dosing after treatment started (i.e., 46.2% decrease in dosing, 7.6% increase in dosing). Clinical benefit was observed in 54.1% patients, including 8.3% with complete response. Overall, 58.1% of patients experienced treatment discontinuation eventually, either because of toxicities or progressive disease. When choosing 50–100 ng/mL trough concentrations as a target exposure (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), 45% patients were adequately exposed. When considering 1200–2150 ng/mL.h as a target AUC (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), only 26% patients were in the desired therapeutic window. TDM with retrospective PK/PD modeling would have suggested decreasing sunitinib dosing in a much larger number of patients as compared with empirical dose adjustment. Indeed, when using target trough concentrations, the model proposed reducing dosing for 61% patients, and up to 84% patients based upon target AUC. Conversely, the model proposed increasing dosing in 9.7% of patients when using target trough concentrations and in 6.5% patients when using target AUC. Overall, TDM with adaptive dosing would have led to tailoring sunitinib dosing in a larger number of patients (i.e., 53.8% vs. 71–91%, depending on the chosen metrics for target exposure) than a clinical-based decision. Interestingly, sunitinib dosing was empirically reduced in 41% patients who displayed early-onset severe toxicities, whereas model-based recommendations would have immediately proposed to reduce dosing in more than 80% of those patients. This observation suggests that early treatment-related toxicities could have been partly avoided using prospective PK/PD modeling with adaptive dosing. Conversely, the possible impact of model-based adapted dosing on efficacy could not be fully evaluated because no clear relationship was found between baseline exposure levels and sunitinib efficacy measured at 3 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies assessing ibrutinib's economic burden versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) focused on pharmacy costs but not medical costs. This study compared time to next treatment (TTNT), health care resource utilization (HRU), and total direct costs among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) initiating front-line ibrutinib single agent (Ibr) or CIT., Materials and Methods: Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart De-Identified Databases were used to identify adults with ≥ 2 claims with a CLL diagnosis initiating front-line Ibr or CIT from February 12, 2014 to June 30, 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for potential differences in baseline characteristics between the Ibr and CIT cohorts. Two periods were considered: entire front-line therapy (until initiation of second-line therapy) and first 6 months of front-line therapy. Comparisons with a subgroup of CIT patients initiating bendamustine/rituximab (BR) were also conducted., Results: TTNT was significantly longer for Ibr (N = 322) relative to CIT (N = 839; hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0163; Kaplan-Meier rates [24 months]: Ibr = 88.6%, CIT = 75.9%) and the subset of CIT patients treated with BR (N = 455; hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0208; Kaplan-Meier rates [24 months]: Ibr = 89.0%, BR = 79.0%). During the entire front-line therapy, Ibr patients had significantly fewer monthly days with outpatient visits (rate ratio = 0.75; P = .0200). Ibrutinib's higher pharmacy costs (mean monthly cost difference [MMCD] = $6,849; P < .0001) were offset by lower medical costs (MMCD = -$10,615; P < .0001), yielding net savings (MMCD = -$3,766; P < .0001) versus CIT. Ibr was associated with net savings (MMCD = -$5,569; P < .0001) versus BR. Cost savings and reductions in HRU were more pronounced during the first 6 months of front-line therapy., Conclusion: During front-line CLL treatment, Ibr was associated with longer TTNT, fewer monthly days with outpatient visits, and net monthly total cost reduction versus CIT and BR., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)