AimA systematic review of treatment guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was performed to assess recommendations for monoclonal antibody therapy in these guidelines.MethodRelevant papers were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library; through manual searches of reference lists; and by searching the Internet.ResultsA total of 57 relevant guidelines were identified, 32 through electronic database searches and 25 through the website searches. The majority of guidelines were published between 2004 and 2010. The country publishing the most guidelines was the USA (12), followed by the UK (10), Canada (eight), France (eight), Germany (three), Australia (two), Spain (two) and Italy (one). In addition, eight European and three international guidelines were identified. As monoclonal antibody therapy for mCRC was not introduced until 2004, no firm recommendations for monoclonal antibody therapy were made in guidelines published between 2004 and 2006. Recommendations for monoclonal antibody therapy first appeared in 2007 and evolved as more data became available. The most recent international, European and US guidelines recommend combination chemotherapy with the addition of a monoclonal antibody for the first-line treatment of mCRC. Second-line treatment depends on the first-line regimen used. For chemoresistant mCRC, cetuximab or panitumumab are recommended as monotherapy in patients with wild-type KRAS tumours.ConclusionThe study indicates that recent treatment guidelines have recognized the role of monoclonal antibodies in the management of mCRC, and that treatment guidelines should be updated in a timely manner to reflect the most recently available data.

No abstract

BackgroundClinical trials for treatments indicated for orphan diseases may be limited due to the low prevalence of such diseases; this can result in implications for both regulatory and health economic perspectives. This study assessed the pivotal clinical evidence packages submitted to support applications for European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorizations for treatments for orphan conditions, in relation to the size of the eligible patient population.MethodsApproved treatments for EMA-designated orphan conditions (defined as life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions that affect ≤5/10,000 people) were identified from the EMA web site. All treatments reviewed were included in anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) category L (antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs): this category was selected because it is the largest ATC category, containing almost 50 % of all approved orphan-designated products. Treatments were reviewed if they had been approved within the past 7 years and had been evaluated in a controlled trial using at least one survival-based clinical endpoint. Treatments were compared in terms of patient-years (accumulated duration of follow-up), the number of patients in the pivotal trials and disease prevalence.ResultsAs of 1 February 2014, 68 treatments had been approved for orphan-designated conditions, of which 30 belonged to ATC category L and 14 met all inclusion criteria. The number of patients in the pivotal trials ranged from 162 to 846 (median 485). In terms of patient-years, the longest duration of follow-up was seen in the pivotal trial of mifamurtide in osteosarcoma, which had 4068 patient-years; excluding this trial, follow-up ranged from 308 to 2906 patient-years (median 1796 years). Osteosarcoma had the second smallest eligible patient population (0.5/10,000 persons) of the reviewed treatments.ConclusionsClinical trials of orphan treatments are often limited by low patient numbers and inadequate follow-up. Pooling of expertise in single centres and the establishment of rare disease reference networks and patient registries may facilitate appropriate trial design for orphan-designated treatments. This analysis found that the pivotal clinical trial for mifamurtide in osteosarcoma had the largest number of patient-years of follow-up, despite a small eligible patient population, showing that it is possible to conduct studies with an adequate patient population size and duration of follow-up in patient-years, and a comparative design with clinical, survival-based, endpoints.

ObjectivesGastrointestinal (GI) intolerance is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition (EN). The objective of this analysis is to quantify the cost of GI intolerance and the cost implications of starting with semi-elemental EN in intensive care units (ICUs).Study designA US-based cost–consequence model was developed to compare the costs for patients with and without GI intolerance and the costs with semi-elemental or standard EN while varying the proportion of GI intolerance cases avoided.Materials and methodsICU data on GI intolerance prevalence and outcomes in patients receiving EN were derived from an observational study. ICU stay costs were obtained from literature and the costs of EN from US customers’ price lists. The model was used to conduct a threshold analysis, which calculated the minimum number of cases of GI intolerance that would have to be avoided to make the initial use of semi-elemental formula cost saving for the cohort.ResultsOut of 100 patients receiving EN, 31 had GI intolerance requiring a median ICU stay of 14.4 days versus 11.3 days for each patient without GI intolerance. The model calculated that semi-elemental formula was cost saving versus standard formula when only three cases of GI intolerance were prevented per 100 patients (7% of GI intolerance cases avoided).ConclusionIn the US setting, the model predicts that initial use of semi-elemental instead of standard EN can result in cost savings through the reduction in length of ICU stay if >7% of GI intolerance cases are avoided.

Introduction: Overall survival (OS) continues to be the preferred endpoint for measuring sustained clinical benefits in oncology trials. In some cases, measuring OS can be problematical due to trial design, multiple lines of treatment (Tx), long survival times, and other factors. In this context, there is growing interest in the time to second objective disease progression (PFS2) for Txs with good toxicity profiles. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends the use of PFS2 to help understand the relevance of meaningful improvements in PFS when OS cannot be measured (e.g. maintenance Tx, increased number of “induction” cycles) (EMA, 2012). PFS2 is defined as “time from randomisation to objective tumour progression on next-line treatment or death from any cause. In some cases, time on next-line therapy may be used as proxy for PFS.” PFS2 is likely to become an important endpoint for regulatory and reimbursement evaluations in Europe and elsewhere as a result of the recent EMA guidance. Therefore there is a need to optimally understand the role PFS2 is likely to play in clinical trial results and their application. Methods: We undertook a search on clinicaltrials.gov for cancer trials that include PFS2 as an endpoint (search terms: cancer AND PFS; cancer AND PFS2). Through mapping of drugs vs. other endpoints, stage of development, likely or current indications, and other factors, we considered whether PFS2 would have a role in a potentially new or changed indication and therefore in regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) submissions. Based on this, we have identified critical areas where understanding and use of PFS2 data may pose challenges in the submission processes, from the perspectives of the clinical trial sponsor and regulatory agency. Results: As of July 2014, a total of 7,957 cancer trials list PFS as an endpoint; 14 of these include PFS2. In all cases, PFS2 is listed as a secondary endpoint. PFS is the primary endpoint in 13/14, with time to failure as the primary endpoint in 1 trial. OS is not a primary endpoint in any trial that lists PFS2, but is a secondary endpoint in 13 of the 14 trials. It is being studied in the context of either maintenance (10/14 trials) or sequential Tx (3/14) and has the potential for inclusion in regulatory and HTA submissions in all cases. The types of oncology trials in which PFS2 is being assessed included multiple myeloma (n = 3), prostate cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), head and neck cancer (n = 1), colorectal cancer (n = 4), non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1), and pancreatic cancer (n = 1). There are 6 phase 2 and 8 phase 3 trials that are listed as either not yet recruiting (n = 4), ongoing (n = 4), or recruiting (n = 6). We identified a number of issues for key groups that may arise from the inclusion of PFS2 in clinical trials. For healthcare professionals there is a need to understand the clinical relevance of a new endpoint that may provide additional and complementary information on Tx of progressive disease from both medical and patient (pt) perspectives. For trial sponsors, clear and clinically relevant communication of PFS2 results is needed and data must be included in medical and economic models. Agencies evaluating regulatory or HTA submissions must understand the benefits shown by an improved PFS2, whether or not there is an improvement in OS, and methodologies for evaluating the medical and economic value of PFS2 are required. Restricting our search to clinicaltrials.gov was associated with some limitations. For example, some trials in which PFS2 has been measured could have been missed due to ongoing updates to publically available information. Also, in some cases, post-hoc analyses may have evaluated PFS2 without a change to website details. Trials in which PFS2 has been measured and data published were not part of the search strategy. Conclusions: PFS2 is emerging as a secondary endpoint in a growing number of clinical oncology trials assessing the benefits of maintenance or sequential Tx. Although data are currently limited, the results of trials currently listed on clinicaltrials.gov will help to determine how PFS2 provides additional and complementary information about Tx of progressive disease from both medical and pt perspectives. Disclosures Mbanya: PHMR Associates: Consultancy. Chadda:PHMR Associates: Consultancy.