Purpose: No published head-to-head randomized trials have compared the safety and efficacy of darolutamide vs apalutamide or enzalutamide in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. This study compares prespecified adverse events and metastasis-free survival associated with darolutamide vs apalutamide, and darolutamide vs enzalutamide, via matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. Materials and Methods: Individual patient data from the phase III ARAMIS trial (N PLACEBO [553; N DAROLUTAMIDE [943) were selected and reweighted to match the inclusion criteria and baseline characteristics published for the phase III SPARTAN (N PLACEBO [401; N APALUTAMIDE [806) and PROSPER (N PLACEBO [468; N ENZALUTAMIDE [933) trials. Only baseline factors consistentlyreported across trials were included as matching covariates. Both indirect comparisons matched on age, prostate specific antigen level and doubling time, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Gleason score, and bone-sparing agent use. Darolutamide vs apalutamide also matched on prior surgery and darolutamide vs enzalutamide also matched on region. Risk differences and odds ratios were calculated for adverse events and hazard ratios for metastasis-free survival. Results: No differences in metastasis-free survival hazard ratios were found after matching in either comparison. However, fall, fracture and rash rates were statistically significantly lower in favor of darolutamide vs apalutamide. Fall, dizziness, mental impairment, fatigue and severe fatigue rates were statistically significantly lower in favor of darolutamide vs enzalutamide.

Demonstrating the value of therapies from a patient's perspective is increasingly important for patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with risankizumab vs ustekinumab and placebo in psoriasis symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and mental health among patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The UltIMMa-1 and UltIMMa-2 studies were replicate 52-week phase 3, randomized, multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled trials conducted in 139 sites (including hospitals, academic medical centers, clinical research units, and private practices) globally in Asia-Pacific, Japan, Europe, and North America. Adults (Ն18 years) with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with body surface area (BSA) involvement of 10% or more, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) scores of 12 or higher, and static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) scores of 3 or higher were included. INTERVENTIONS In each trial, patients were randomly assigned (3:1:1) to 150 mg of risankizumab, 45 mg or 90 mg of ustekinumab (weight-based per label) for 52 weeks, or matching placebo for 16 weeks followed by risankizumab. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Integrated data from 2 trials were used to compare Psoriasis Symptom Scale (PSS) (total score and item scores for pain, redness, itchiness, and burning), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), 5-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), at baseline, week 16, and week 52. RESULTS A total of 997 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis were analyzed. Across all arms, the mean age was 47.2 to 47.8 years and 68.3% (136/199 for ustekinumab) to 73.0% (146/200 for placebo) were men. Patients' characteristics and PROs were comparable across all treatment arms at baseline (n = 598, 199, 200 for risankizumab, ustekinumab, and placebo, respectively). At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with risankizumab than those treated with ustekinumab or placebo achieved PSS = 0, indicating no psoriasis symptoms (30.3% [181/598], 15.1% [30/199], 1.0% [2/200], both P < .001), and DLQI = 0 or 1 indicating no impact on skin-related HRQL (66.2%, 44.7%, 6.0%, P < .001). Significantly greater proportions of patients treated with risankizumab achieved minimally clinically important difference (MCID) than ustekinumab or placebo for DLQI (94.

Background Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies have been the mainstay of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment for nearly 2 decades. Therapies with novel mechanisms of action have been recently developed. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs incurred while switching from an initial anti-TNF to another anti-TNF versus switching to vedolizumab. Methods Adults with IBD who switched from initial anti-TNF to another anti-TNF or vedolizumab were identified from Truven MarketScan claims database (January 1, 2000–September 30, 2017). Patient characteristics were assessed during the 6-month period before the initiation date of the switched-to treatment (index date). Adjusted analyses of all-cause and disease-related HRU and costs during the 6-month period after the index date (study period) were performed. Anti-TNF and vedolizumab switchers with Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) were separately compared. Results A total of 502 vedolizumab, 1708 adalimumab, 755 infliximab, and 703 other switchers with CD and 461, 428, 311, and 148 with UC, respectively, were identified. Patient demographics were similar across cohorts. Total all-cause costs were significantly higher for vedolizumab than adalimumab, infliximab, and certolizumab switchers in the CD cohort and adalimumab and infliximab in the UC cohort. In both cohorts, adalimumab and other switchers had fewer all-cause and IBD-related outpatient visits than vedolizumab switchers. Conclusions CD/UC patients who switched to vedolizumab from initial anti-TNF had higher total and treatment costs than patients who switched to another anti-TNF, except for UC patients who switched to golimumab. Prospective studies should be conducted to confirm these findings.

Background Recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) is common, prolonging disease morbidity and leading to poor quality of life. We evaluated disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with rCDI treated with fecal microbiota, live-jslm (RBL) versus placebo. Methods This was a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (PUNCH CD3). The disease-specific Clostridioides difficile Quality of Life Survey (Cdiff32) was administered at baseline and weeks 1, 4, and 8. Changes in Cdiff32 total and domain (physical, mental, social) scores from baseline to week 8 were compared between RBL and placebo and for responders and non-responders. Results A total of 185 patients (RBL n = 128 [69.2%], placebo n = 57 [30.8%]) with available Cdiff32 data were analyzed. Patients from both arms showed significant improvements in Cdiff32 scores relative to baseline across all outcomes and at all time points (all p &lt; 0.001); RBL-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements in mental domain compared to placebo. In adjusted analyses, RBL-treated patients were associated with greater improvements than placebo in total score and physical and mental domains (all p &lt; 0.05). Similar improvement in mental domain was observed among responders, while non-responders showed numerical improvements with RBL but not placebo. Conclusions In a phase 3 double-blinded clinical trial, RBL-treated patients reported more substantial and sustained disease-specific HRQL improvements compared with placebo-treated patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03244644; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03244644.

No abstract