Coverage for targeted first-line erlotinib therapy in NSCLC likely results in a small budget impact for US health plans. The estimated impact may vary by plan, or if second-line or maintenance therapy, dose changes/interruptions, or impact on patients' quality-of-life were included.

BackgroundPertuzumab (Perjeta®), a HER2/neu receptor antagonist, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in June 2012 for use in the first-line setting for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC).ObjectiveThis retrospective study investigated the clinical and demographic characteristics, treatment patterns, safety, and clinical outcomes for patients with HER2-positive mBC who received pertuzumab in the first-line setting in US community oncology practices.MethodsPatients with HER2-positive mBC, who initiated pertuzumab within 60 days of mBC diagnosis between June 2012 and June 2014, followed through December 2014, had ≥2 visits within the McKesson Specialty Health/US Oncology Network, and were not on clinical trials during the study period, were eligible. This study utilized iKnowMed electronic health records, Claims Data Warehouse, and Social Security Death Index. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed by Kaplan–Meier methods.ResultsA total of 266 patients met the selection criteria. A vast majority of the patients (249/266, 93.6%) received a trastuzumab + pertuzumab + taxane (H + P + T) regimen. The number of patients with prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy was higher than the CLEOPATRA trial, but age (median 57 years) and percentage of visceral disease (74.8%) were similar. The most common adverse events were fatigue (50.8%), diarrhea (44.7%), nausea (35.3%), peripheral neuropathy (33.5%), neutropenia (24.9%), and rash (24.4%). The median PFS was 16.9 months (95% CI 14.2–19.7).ConclusionsIn this retrospective study of patients with HER2-positive mBC receiving pertuzumab in the first-line setting, most patients were treated with H + P + T. The safety and PFS of H + P + T were consistent with those observed in the pivotal trial.

Two mid-range haematology analysers (Abbott CELL-DYN Ruby and Sysmex XT-2000i) were evaluated to determine their analytical performance and workflow efficiency in the haematology laboratory. In total 418 samples were processed for determining equivalence of complete blood count (CBC) measurements, and 100 for reticulocyte comparison. Blood smears served for assessing the agreement of the differential counts. Inter-instrument agreement for most parameters was good although small numbers of discrepancies were observed. Systematic biases were found for mean cell volume, reticulocytes, platelets and mean platelet volume. CELL-DYN Ruby WBC differentials were obtained with all samples while the XT-2000i suppressed differentials partially or completely in 13 samples (3.1%). WBC subpopulation counts were otherwise in good agreement with no major outliers. Following first-pass CBC/differential analysis, 88 (21%) of XT-2000i samples required further analyser processing compared to 18 (4.3%) for the CELL-DYN Ruby. Smear referrals for suspected WBC/nucleated red blood cells and platelet abnormalities were indicated for 106 (25.4%) and 95 (22.7%) of the XT-2000i and CELL-DYN Ruby samples respectively. Flagging efficiencies for both analysers were found to be similar. The Sysmex XT-2000i and Abbott CELL-DYN Ruby analysers have broadly comparable analytical performance, but the CELL-DYN Ruby showed superior first-pass efficiency.

A5from pragmatic trials, and another 4 studies (23.5%) from observational studies. The odds ratio for effectiveness versus efficacy being cost-effective was 8.75 (95% confidence interval; 0.74 to 103.82). ConClusions: Most CEA studies in asthma used efficacy data to inform CEA. Studies using effectiveness data trend toward being more likely to disseminate cost-effective findings than those using efficacy data. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of "E" evidence used in CEAs for accurate interpretation and application.