Showing posts with label home-based drug administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label home-based drug administration. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 September 2020

Olaparib and durvalumab in patients with germline BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer (MEDIOLA): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1/2, basket study

 Olaparib and durvalumab in patients with germline BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer (MEDIOLA): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1/2, basket study

 

by Susan M Domchek, Sophie Postel-Vinay, Seock-Ah Im, Yeon Hee Park, Jean-Pierre Delord, Antoine Italiano, Jerome Alexandre, Benoit You, Sara Bastian, Matthew G Krebs, Ding Wang, Saiama N Waqar, Mark Lanasa, Joon Rhee, Haiyan Gao, Vidalba Rocher-Ros, Emma V Jones, Sakshi Gulati, Anna Coenen-Stass, Iwanka Kozarewa, Zhongwu Lai, Helen K Angell, Laura Opincar, Pia Herbolsheimer, Bella Kaufman

 

The Lancet Oncology: VOLUME 21, ISSUE 9, P1155-1164, SEPTEMBER 01, 2020

 

Background

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors combined with immunotherapy have shown antitumour activity in preclinical studies. We aimed to assess the safety and activity of olaparib in combination with the PD-L1-inhibitor, durvalumab, in patients with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated metastatic breast cancer.

Methods

The MEDIOLA trial is a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2, basket trial of durvalumab and olaparib in solid tumours. Patients were enrolled into four initial cohorts: germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic breast cancer; germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic ovarian cancer; metastatic gastric cancer; and relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report on the cohort of patients with breast cancer. Patients who were aged 18 years or older (or aged 19 years or older in South Korea) with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated or both and histologically confirmed, progressive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer were enrolled from 14 health centres in the UK, the USA, Israel, France, Switzerland, and South Korea. Patients should not have received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients received 300 mg olaparib in tablet form orally twice daily for 4 weeks and thereafter a combination of olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1·5 g via intravenous infusion every 4 weeks until disease progression. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and 12-week disease control rate. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, and activity analyses were done in the full-analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and were not excluded from the study). Recruitment has completed and the study is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT02734004.

Findings

Between June 14, 2016, and May 2, 2017, 34 patients were enrolled and received both study drugs and were included in the safety analysis. 11 (32%) patients experienced grade 3 or worse adverse events, of which the most common were anaemia (four [12%]), neutropenia (three [9%]), and pancreatitis (two [6%]). Three (9%) patients discontinued due to adverse events and four (12%) patients experienced a total of six serious adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. 24 (80%; 90% CI 64·3–90·9) of 30 patients eligible for activity analysis had disease control at 12 weeks.

Interpretation

Combination of olaparib and durvalumab showed promising antitumour activity and safety similar to that previously observed in olaparib and durvalumab monotherapy studies. Further research in a randomised setting is needed to determine predictors of therapeutic benefit and whether addition of durvalumab improves long-term clinical outcomes compared with olaparib monotherapy.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

Tuesday, 14 July 2020

Hospital-based or home-based administration of oncology drugs? A micro-costing study comparing healthcare and societal costs of hospital-based and home-based subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab



by Margreet Franken, Tim Kanters, Jules Coenen, Paul de Jong, Agnes Jager, Carin Uyl-de Groot 

The Breast: VOLUME 52, P71-77, AUGUST 01, 2020

Highlights
  • Home-based administration of SC trastuzumab almost triples the time of healthcare professionals.
  • Healthcare costs are almost twice as much for home-based than for hospital-based administration.
  • Patient and family costs are almost five times lower for home-based than for hospital-based administration.


Abstract
Objective

To investigate resource use and time investments of healthcare professionals, patients and their family and to compare healthcare and societal costs of one single hospital-based and one single home-based subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab in The Netherlands.

Method

We conducted a bottom-up micro-costing study. Patients diagnosed with HER2+ early or metastatic breast cancer were recruited in four Dutch hospitals. For healthcare costs, data were collected on drug use, consumables, use of healthcare facilities, time of healthcare professionals, and travelling distance of the nurse. For societal costs, data were collected on patient and family costs (including travelling expenses and time of informal caregivers) and productivity losses of paid and unpaid work.

Results

Societal costs of one single administration of SC trastuzumab were €1753 within the home-based and €1724 within the hospital-based setting. Drug costs of trastuzumab were identical in both settings (€1651). Healthcare costs were higher for home-based administration (€91 versus €47) mainly because of more time of healthcare professionals (110 versus 38 minutes). Costs for patient and family were, however, lower for home-based administration due to travelling expenses (€7 versus €0) and time of informal caregivers (€14 versus €4). Costs for productivity losses were similar for both settings.

Conclusions

Home-based subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab is more time consuming for healthcare professionals and therefore more costly than hospital-based administration. The total budget impact can be large considering that a large number of patients receive a large number of cycles of oncology treatments. If home-based administration is the way forward, novel approaches are crucial for ensuring efficiency of home-based care.