Population-Based Mini-Mental State Examination Norms in Adults of Mexican Heritage in the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort

BACKGROUND

Accurately identifying cognitive changes in Mexican American (MA) adults using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) requires knowledge of population-based norms for the MMSE, a scale which has widespread use in research settings.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the distribution of MMSE scores in a large cohort of MA adults, assess the impact of MMSE requirements on their clinical trial eligibility, and explore which factors are most strongly associated with their MMSE scores.

METHODS

Visits between 2004-2021 in the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort were analyzed. Eligible participants were ≥18 years old and of Mexican descent. MMSE distributions before and after stratification by age and years of education (YOE) were assessed, as was the proportion of trial-aged (50-85- year-old) participants with MMSE <24, a minimum MMSE cutoff most frequently used in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. As a secondary analysis, random forest models were constructed to estimate the relative association of the MMSE with potentially relevant variables.

RESULTS

The mean age of the sample set (n = 3,404) was 44.4 (SD, 16.0) years old and 64.5% female. Median MMSE was 28 (IQR, 28-29). The percentage of trial-aged participants (n = 1,267) with MMSE <24 was 18.6%; 54.3% among the subset with 0-4 YOE (n = 230). The five variables most associated with the MMSE in the study sample were education, age, exercise, C-reactive protein, and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The minimum MMSE cutoffs in most phase III prodromal-to-mild AD trials would exclude a significant proportion of trial-aged participants in this MA cohort, including over half of those with 0-4 YOE.

Use of durvalumab in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer based on eligibility for the PACIFIC study

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiotherapy is standard treatment for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer based on the results of the PACIFIC trial. Based on trial criteria, not all patients are eligible for durvalumab in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

We evaluated eligibility for durvalumab in a real-world clinical setting and the impact of eligibility on outcomes. Consecutive patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy at two tertiary centers between January 2015 and June 2022 were assessed. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated based on eligibility criteria for the PACIFIC trial.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients were included. Seventy patients (56%) were eligible for durvalumab. Ineligibility was associated with shorter progression-free survival of 9.7 months versus 18.4 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.95, p = 0.029) and overall survival of 26.4 months versus 58.7 months (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28-0.80, p = 0.005). Common reasons for ineligibility were history of previous malignancy (32%) and progressive disease or death during chemoradiotherapy (25%). Ineligible patients who received durvalumab had similar outcomes to eligible patients who received durvalumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world cohort, adjuvant durvalumab is safe and beneficial in a substantial proportion of patients who would not have been eligible for the PACIFIC trial.

Association of QT interval-prolonging drugs with clinical trial eligibility in patients with advanced cancer

Introduction

Drug-induced prolongation of the heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) is associated with increased risk for the potentially fatal arrhythmia torsades de pointes. Due to arrhythmia risk, clinical trials with cancer therapeutics often exclude patients based on thresholds for QTc prolongation. Our objective was to assess associations between prescriptions for QT-prolonging drugs and the odds of meeting cancer trial exclusionary QTc thresholds in a cohort of adults with advanced cancer.

Methods

Electronic health records were retrospectively reviewed for 271 patients seen at our institutional molecular solid tumor clinic. Collected data included demographics, QTc measurements, ventricular arrhythmia-related diagnoses, and all inpatient and outpatient prescriptions. Potential associations were assessed between demographic and clinical variables, including prescriptions for QT-prolonging drugs, and QTc measurements.

Results

Women had longer median QTc measurements than men (p = 0.030) and were prescribed more QT-prolonging drugs during the study (p = 0.010). In all patients, prescriptions for QT-prolonging drugs were associated with longer median and maximum QTc measurements at multiple assessed time points (i.e., for QT-prolonging drugs prescribed within 10, 30, 60, and 90 days of QTc measurements). Similarly, the number of QT-prolonging drugs prescribed was correlated with longer median and maximum QTc measurements at multiple time points. Common QTc-related exclusionary criteria were collected from a review of ClinicalTrials.gov for recent cancer clinical trials. Based on common exclusion criteria, prescriptions for QT-prolonging drugs increased the odds of trial exclusion.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that prescriptions for QT-prolonging drugs were associated with longer QTc measurements and increased odds of being excluded from cancer clinical trials.

Real-world evidence to guide healthcare policies in oncology

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in oncology enroll patients who meet strict protocol-specified criteria. Many of these criteria overlap across multiple RCTs. A vast proportion of patients with metastatic cancer do not meet such criteria. Hence, patient populations encountered in clinical practice are essentially different from RCT-populations, questioning the representativeness of these trials. A real-world evidence approach, using data from clinical practice, is increasingly employed to complement the information on drug safety and efficacy obtained from traditional clinical trials.

Are clinical trial eligibility criteria an accurate reflection of a real-world population of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients?

Background

Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) represents a major health issue globally. Systemic treatment decisions are informed by clinical trials, which, over years, have improved the survival of patients with advanced nsclc. The applicability of clinical trial results to the broad lung cancer population is unclear because strict eligibility criteria in trials generally select for optimal patients.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients with advanced nsclc seen in outpatient consultation at our academic institution between September 2009 and September 2012, collecting data about patient demographics and cancer characteristics, treatment, and survival from hospital and pharmacy records. Two sets of arbitrary trial eligibility criteria were applied to the cohort. Scenario A stipulated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ecog ps) 0-1, no brain metastasis, creatinine less than 120 μmol/L, and no second malignancy. Less-strict scenario B stipulated ecog ps 0-2 and creatinine less than 120 μmol/L. We then used the two scenarios to analyze treatment and survival of patients by trial eligibility status.

Results

The 528 included patients had a median age of 67 years, with 55% being men and 58% having adenocarcinoma. Of those 528 patients, 291 received at least 1 line of palliative systemic therapy. Using the scenario A eligibility criteria, 73% were trial-ineligible. However, 46% of "ineligible" patients actually received therapy and experienced survival similar to that of the "eligible" treated patients (10.2 months vs. 11.6 months, p = 0.10). Using the scenario B criteria, only 35% were ineligible, but again, the survival of treated patients was similar in the ineligible and eligible groups (10.1 months vs. 10.9 months, p = 0.57).

Conclusions

Current trial eligibility criteria are often strict and limit the enrolment of patients in clinical trials. Our results suggest that, depending on the chosen drug, its toxicities and tolerability, eligibility criteria could be carefully reviewed and relaxed.