Patient and Caregiver Preferences for First-Line Treatments of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinomas (mNSCLC) treatment has presented more care options. Therefore, it is important to identify the benefit-risk trade-offs patients and caregivers are willing to make among potential treatment options. This study quantified the preferences of patients and caregivers for attributes of mNSCLC treatment.

METHODS

Patients with mNSCLC and caregivers completed an online survey assessing preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Respondents chose between hypothetical treatment profiles, with varying levels for 7 attributes associated with first-line treatment, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, select adverse events (AEs), and regimen (caregivers). Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate attribute-level preference weights.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 308) and caregivers (n = 166) most valued increasing OS from 11 to 30 months, followed by decreasing the risk of a serious AE (grade 3/4) that may lead to hospitalization from 70% to 18%. These attributes were over twice as important to both sets of respondents as the other attributes measured. Patients and caregivers would accept increases in the risks of a serious AE (grade 3/4) from 18% to 70% and all grades nausea from 10% to 69% if OS increased by 16.8 and 4.0 months, respectively. The least valued attributes were all grades of pneumonitis (patients) and all grades of skin rash (caregivers).

CONCLUSION

Patients and caregivers are willing to make trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity and may require up to 1.5 years of increased OS to accept a higher risk of AEs. These results can provide guidance to oncologists when engaging in shared-decision making discussions.

Safety and Efficacy of Exenatide Once Weekly in Participants with Type 2 Diabetes and Stage 2/3 Chronic Kidney Disease

INTRODUCTION

The safety and efficacy of exenatide once weekly (EQW) is overall well established. EQW is primarily renally eliminated. In this study, the efficacy and renal and gastrointestinal tolerability of EQW were summarised in participants with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease stage 3 (CKD3; moderate renal impairment; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) or CKD stage 2 (CKD2; mild renal impairment; eGFR ≥ 60 to < 90 mL/min/1.73 m²).

METHODS

Data on participants with type 2 diabetes and baseline CKD3 or CKD2 from eight phase 3, double-blind or open-label studies with 26- or 28-week controlled treatment periods were pooled. Participants received EQW or a placebo/non-glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist comparator (sitagliptin, metformin, pioglitazone, dapagliflozin and insulin).

RESULTS

Participants with baseline CKD3 (N = 182) or CKD2 (N = 772) receiving EQW differed in a number of baseline characteristics, such as age < 65 years, race, mean body mass index and mean type 2 diabetes duration, whereas mean blood pressure and glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) were similar. Mean reductions in HbA_1c, body weight and systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 26/28 in participants receiving EQW were similar between the CKD subgroups. The proportions of participants (CKD3 and CKD2) with any adverse event (AE) were 81% and 72%, respectively, for EQW and 74% and 68%, respectively, for all comparators; those for serious AEs were 2.7% and 3.4%, respectively, for EQW and 6% and 5%, respectively, for all comparators. Gastrointestinal AE rates were higher in the EQW CKD3 subgroup (42.2% of participants) than in the CKD2 (32.8%) subgroup, although rates for nausea and vomiting were similar. There were no dehydration events; one participant in each treatment group had a serious AE of acute kidney injury (EQW with CKD3, n = 1; pioglitazone with CKD2, n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Exenatide once weekly was well tolerated and demonstrated similar efficacy in participants with type 2 diabetes with mild and moderate renal impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00637273, NCT00676338, NCT02229383, NCT02229396, NCT00641056, NCT01652729, NCT00935532, NCT01003184.

Peripherally Acting μ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists for the Treatment of Opioid-Related Side Effects: Mechanism of Action and Clinical Implications

Opioid receptors are distributed throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems and on many nonneuronal cells. Therefore, opioid administration induces effects beyond analgesia. In the enteric nervous system (ENS), stimulation of µ-opioid receptors triggers several inhibitory responses that can culminate in opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) and its most common side effect, opioid-induced constipation (OIC). OIC negatively affects patients' quality of life (QOL), ability to work, and pain management. Although laxatives are a common first-line OIC therapy, most have limited efficacy and do not directly antagonize opioid effects on the ENS. Peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) with limited ability to cross the blood-brain barrier have been developed. The PAMORAs approved by the U S Food and Drug Administration for OIC are subcutaneous and oral methylnaltrexone, oral naloxegol, and oral naldemedine. Although questions of cost-effectiveness and relative efficacy versus laxatives remain, PAMORAs can mitigate OIC and improve patient QOL. PAMORAS may also have applications beyond OIC, including reducing the increased cardiac risk or potential tumorigenic effects of opioids. This review discusses the burden of OIC and OBD, reviews the mechanism of action of new OIC therapies, and highlights other potential opioid-related side effects mediated by peripheral opioid receptors in the context of new OIC therapies.

Constipation in Elderly Patients with Noncancer Pain: Focus on Opioid-Induced Constipation

Constipation is a common and often debilitating condition in the elderly, which may be caused by underlying disease conditions, structural abnormalities in the bowel, and a variety of medications such as anticholinergics, antidepressants, and opiates. In this review, we focus on opioid-induced constipation (OIC), which is often underrecognized and undertreated in the elderly. When opioid therapy is initiated, healthcare providers are encouraged to evaluate risk factors for the development of constipation as part of a thorough patient history. To this end, the patient assessment should include the use of validated instruments, such as the Bristol Stool Scale and Bowel Function Index, to confirm the diagnosis and provide a basis for evaluating treatment outcomes. Healthcare providers should use a stepwise approach to the treatment of OIC in the elderly. Conventional laxatives are a first-line option and considered well tolerated with short-term use as needed; however, evidence is lacking to support their effectiveness in OIC. Moreover, because of the risk of adverse events and other considerations, such as chewing difficulties and swallowing disorders, conventional oral laxatives may be inappropriate for the treatment of OIC in the elderly. Thus, the availability of new pharmacologic agents such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists methylnaltrexone and naloxegol, which target the underlying causes of OIC, and the secretagogue lubiprostone may provide more effective treatment options for elderly patients with OIC.

Impact of Reduced Renal Function on the Glucose-Lowering Effects of Luseogliflozin, a Selective SGLT2 Inhibitor, Assessed by Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the impact of reduced renal function on 24-h glucose variability in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with luseogliflozin.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 37 Japanese patients with T2DM [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0%] and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥45 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were randomized into two groups in which patients first received luseogliflozin then placebo, or vice versa, for 7 days each. Twenty-four-hour glucose variability was measured on day 7 in each period and was compared among patients divided into three groups according to their baseline eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m(2)): normal (≥90; n = 13; normal group), normal-to-mildly reduced renal function (≥75 to <90; n = 12; normal-mild group), and mild-to-moderately reduced renal function (<75; n = 9; mild-moderate group).

RESULTS

The mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] placebo-subtracted 24-h cumulative urinary glucose excretion (g) was 82.1 (72.7, 91.5), 82.5 (73.4, 91.5), and 62.2 (51.2, 73.3); the placebo-subtracted 24-h mean glucose concentration (mg/dL) was -24.39 (-32.53, -16.26), -28.28 (-39.35, -17.22), and -11.53 (-23.93, 0.86); and the placebo-subtracted peak postprandial glucose (mg/dL) was -26.9 (-46.9, -6.9), -38.1 (-59.6, -16.6), and 1.5 (-25.5, 28.4) in the normal, normal-mild, and mild-moderate groups, respectively. The mean lowest glucose concentrations (placebo vs. luseogliflozin, mg/dL) decreased to similar levels in the normal (115.4 vs. 93.4), normal-mild (121.0 vs. 97.9), and mild-moderate (104.0 vs. 91.1) groups.

CONCLUSION

This post hoc subanalysis revealed that although mild-to-moderately reduced renal function attenuated the glucose-lowering effects of luseogliflozin on peak postprandial glucose, it did not attenuate the effects of luseogliflozin on fasting glucose. These findings may explain the smaller increase in urinary glucose excretion in these patients relative to patients with normal renal function or normal-to-moderately reduced renal function. Further studies may be needed to examine these findings in large populations of patients with T2DM and reduced renal function.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

JapicCTI-142548.

FUNDING

Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.