Effects of denosumab on pain and analgesic use in giant cell tumor of bone: interim results from a phase II study

BACKGROUND

Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is an aggressive primary osteolytic tumor. GCTB often involves the epiphysis, usually causing substantial pain and functional disability. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor κΒ ligand (RANKL), is an effective treatment option for patients with advanced GCTB. This analysis of data from an ongoing, open-label study describes denosumab's effects on pain and analgesic use in patients with GCTB.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with unresectable disease (e.g. sacral or spinal GCTB, or multiple lesions including pulmonary metastases) were enrolled into Cohort 1 (N = 170), and patients with resectable disease whose planned surgery was associated with severe morbidity (e.g. joint resection, limb amputation, or hemipelvectomy) were enrolled into Cohort 2 (N = 101). Patients received denosumab (120 mg) subcutaneously every four weeks, with additional doses on study days 8 and 15. Patients assessed worst pain severity with the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) at baseline, at each visit for the first six months, and every three months thereafter.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant pain improvement was reported by 29% of patients in Cohort 1 and 35% in Cohort 2 during week 1 and by ≥ 50% of patients in each cohort at each study visit from months 2-30. Median time to clinically relevant improvement was 30 (95% CI 16, 57) days in Cohort 1 and 15 (95% CI 15, 29) days in Cohort 2. Results in patients with moderate/severe pain at baseline were similar. Fewer than 30% of patients in Cohort 1 and 10% in Cohort 2 experienced clinically relevant pain worsening at any visit through 27 months. Most patients had no/low analgesic use during the study.

CONCLUSION

Most patients treated with denosumab experienced clinically relevant decreases in pain within two months.

Lipid attainment among patients newly treated with lipid-altering drugs

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines for preventing and treating patients with coronary artery disease have traditionally focused on reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Current treatments are effective; however, previous studies have identified a significant proportion of patients that are not achieving the recommended lipid levels. New guidelines were introduced November 2013. The objective of this study was to examine recent practice patterns and factors related to initiating treatment for hypercholesterolemia, which provides a comparative baseline to the introduction of new guidelines.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis utilizing laboratory results of lipid profiles and medical claims from January 2007 to September 2011 to identify patients with elevated LDL-C and diagnoses of hypercholesterolemia without prior pharmacotherapy. Pharmacotherapy dispensed, treatment modifications, LDL-C-goal attainment, and potential drug intolerance were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, among newly treated patients, 70.9% achieved the recommended LDL-C level within the first year of treatment; however, only 19.4% of those with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalents achieved the more aggressive LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). LDL-C goals were generally achieved with the use of statins; however, a majority of patients underwent treatment modification(s) (e.g., discontinuation or restart). More than half of the patients diagnosed with elevated LDL-C did not initiate pharmacotherapy.

LIMITATIONS

Data was unavailable for inpatient hospitalizations, family history of cardiovascular diseases, body weight, and height, and likely under-reporting of smoking within claims data.

CONCLUSIONS

Newly treated patients with elevated LDL-C results generally achieved the recommended and risk-specific LDL-C goal with the use of lipid-altering drugs; however, there still exists a notable population of patients with CHD or CHD risk equivalents who were not treated to goal and a significant number of patients who do not receive lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy. New therapies and prescribing practices are warranted to adequately address these two patient populations.

Healthcare costs associated with skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients with bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer are pre-disposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), including spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (SB), and radiotherapy to bone (RT).

OBJECTIVE

To document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SREs in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 9/2002 to 6/2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for breast cancer and for bone metastases, and ≥1 claims for an SRE. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of at least 90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) and SRE type (SCC, PF, SB, or RT).

RESULTS

Of 17,266 patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, 9142 (53%) had one or more SRE episodes. Among 5809 patients who met all other criteria, there were 7617 SRE episodes over mean (SD) follow-up of 17.2 (15.2) months. The percentage of episodes that required inpatient treatment ranged from 11% (RT) to 76% (SB). On average, inpatient SCC episodes (n=83 episodes) were most costly; while outpatient PF episodes (n=552 episodes) were least costly. Of the total SRE costs (mean [SE] $21,072 [$36,462]/episode), 36% were attributable to outpatient RT (n=5265 episodes) and 31% to inpatient PF (n=838 episodes).

LIMITATIONS

The administrative claims data used in this study may lack sensitivity and specificity for identification of clinical events and may not be generalizable to other populations. Also, for some SRE episode categories, the number of events was small and cost estimates may lack precision.

CONCLUSION

In patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, SREs are associated with high costs and hospitalizations.

Use of intravenous bisphosphonates in patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer and metastases to bone: a 15-year study in two large US health systems

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to document the use of intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates for prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases (BM) due to breast cancer (BC), lung cancer (LC), or prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

Using data from two large US health systems, we identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years with primary BC, LC, or PC and newly diagnosed BM between 1/1/1995 and 12/31/2009. Starting with the diagnosis of BM, we reviewed medical and administrative records for evidence of receipt of IV bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or pamidronate) and occurrence of SREs. Initiation of IV bisphosphonates prior to occurrence of an SRE was designated "primary prophylaxis"; use following an SRE was designated "secondary prophylaxis".

RESULTS

We identified a total of 1,193 patients with newly diagnosed BM, including 400 with BC, 332 with LC, and 461 with PC. Use of IV bisphosphonates was substantially higher in BC (55.8 % of all patients) than in LC (14.8 %) or PC (20.2 %). Use of IV bisphosphonates was fairly evenly split between primary and secondary prophylaxis in BC (26.3 vs. 29.5 %, respectively) and PC (10.6 vs 9.5 %); in LC, however, primary prophylaxis was much less common than secondary prophylaxis (4.8 vs 9.9 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost one half of all patients with BM due to BC, and substantially more with LC and PC, do not receive IV bisphosphonates. Among patients receiving such therapy, treatment often is not initiated until after the occurrence of an SRE. Our study suggests that IV bisphosphonates may be substantially underutilized in patients with BM due to these common cancers.

Health state utilities for skeletal-related events secondary to bone metastases

INTRODUCTION

Patients with bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs). Although cost-utility models are used to examine treatments for metastatic cancer, limited information is available on utilities of SREs. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disutility of four SREs: spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, radiation to bone, and surgery performed to stabilize a bone.

METHODS

General population participants from the UK and Canada completed time trade-off (TTO) interviews to assess the utility of health states drafted based on literature review, clinician interviews, and patient interviews. Respondents first rated a health state describing cancer with bone metastases. Then, the SREs were added to this health state.

RESULTS

Interviews were completed with 187 participants (50.8 % male, 80.2 % white). Cancer with bone metastases without an SRE had a mean utility of 0.47 (SD = 0.43) on a standard utility scale (1 = full health, 0 = death). Of the SREs, spinal cord compression was associated with the greatest disutility (i.e., the utility decrease): -0.32 with paralysis and -0.22 without paralysis. Surgery had a disutility of -0.07. Leg, arm, and rib fractures had disutilities of -0.06, -0.04, and -0.03. Two weeks of daily radiation treatment had a disutility of -0.06, while two radiation appointments had the smallest impact on utility (-0.02).

CONCLUSION

All SREs were associated with statistically significant utility decreases, suggesting a perceived impact on quality of life beyond the impact of cancer with bone metastases. The resulting disutilities may be used in cost-utility models examining treatments to prevent SREs secondary to bone metastases.

Ectopic pregnancy prediction in women with a pregnancy of unknown location: data beyond 48 h are necessary

STUDY QUESTION

Are there improvements in the accuracy of prediction of ectopic pregnancy (EP) in women with early symptomatic pregnancy using human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) curves when clinicians consider visits beyond the first 48 h after initial presentation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Two hCG values, measured 48 h (2 days) apart, are often not sufficient to accurately predict the outcome of a woman with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL), but adding a third visit on Day 4 or 7 significantly improved the prediction for 1 in 15 women.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of serial hCG values is commonly used to aid in the prediction of the final diagnosis in women with a PUL. Initial outcome predictions based on two hCG values may often be incorrect.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This retrospective multicenter cohort study included 646 women with a PUL, recruited over 2 years. Of these women, 146 were ultimately diagnosed with EP.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women presenting to the emergency room with first trimester pain or bleeding, with a PUL, at least 2 hCG values and a definitive final diagnosis from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Miami and University of Southern California, were recruited from 2007 to 2009.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Using currently recommended prediction rules, adding a third hCG evaluation on Day 4 after initial presentation significantly improved the accuracy of initial prediction from the first two values (48 h apart, or Day 2) by 9.3% (P = 0.015). Adding a third value on Day 7 improved prediction significantly by 6.7% (P = 0.031), compared with prediction based on first two values. The improvement in prediction by assessing four hCG values (Days 0, 2, 4 and 7) compared with three values (Days 0, 2 and 4) was 1.3% and not statistically significant.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Missing data imputation likely biased results toward the null; predicted outcomes may not match those made by clinicians; and the study does not predict intrauterine pregnancy and spontaneous miscarriage separately.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study provides useful information for the prediction of outcomes for women with a symptomatic first trimester pregnancy of unknown location, but may not be generalizable to all pregnant women.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Supported by NIH grant numbers R01-HD036455 to Dr Barnhart and Dr Sammel, K24HD060687 to Dr Barnhart, and 5T32MH065218 to Ms. Zee. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.