Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of ICIs for newly diagnosed aRCC patients in the first-line setting. Methods: Trials evaluating ICI regimens as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed aRCC were searched and included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the US payer’s perspective. The key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the NMA, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3758 patients receiving first-line ICIs treatment were analyzed. The NMA showed that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was ranked higher than the other three ICI regimens and sunitinib in the overall population. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib achieved more health benefits than the other ICI regimens and sunitinib in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and negative tumors, respectively. Among the four ICI regimens, only the ICERs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib were lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY) in the overall and PD-L1-positive populations, and none of four ICI regimens were lower than $150,000/QALY in PD-L1-negative populations. Conclusions: The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab is the most favorable first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive aRCC compared with other ICI regimens and sunitinib. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is likely to be an alternative for PD-L1-negative aRCC due to its more favorable health advantages.

Background: To evaluate the characteristics of drug-related problems (DRPs) in cancer pain patients, and to identify the impact of pharmacists' intervention in cancer pain associated DRPs. Methods: In this investigative, single-arm intervention study, clinical pharmacists identified DRPs in cancer pain patients and provided interventions based on medication information, direct patient-pharmacist interview, and ward rounds with multi-disciplinary team (MDT). Types and causes of DRPs, interventions, acceptance and outcome were sorted based on Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) DRP classification V9.0, which includes 3 primary domains for problems, 9 for causes, 5 for interventions, 3 for acceptance, and 4 for DRPs status.Results: Totally, 42 cancer pain patients were enrolled, and 47 DRPs in 33 (78.6%) patients were identified by clinical pharmacists. The major type of DRPs was treatment effectiveness (30; 63.8%) and treatment safety (17; 36.2%). For the "treatment effectiveness" category, the "effect of drug treatment not optimal" was dominant category (27/30; 90%). A total of 66 DRP causes were identified, and most of DRPs were caused by "drug selection" (27; 40.9%) and "dose selection" (16; 24.2%). Within the "drug selection" category, "no or incomplete drug treatment in spite of existing indication" was dominant category (25/27; 92.6%). According toDRPs, 159 interventions were provided by clinical pharmacists and 99.4% of interventions were accepted by prescribers or patients. Finally, 44 (93.6%) DRPs were solved. Conclusions: In cancer pain patients, insufficient pain control mainly caused by inappropriate selection and dosage of analgesics. Clinical pharmacists' interventions dramatically ameliorate these problems and bring about positive effects in cancer pain pharmacotherapy.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is highly prevalent in patients with cancer. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), directly targeting the enzymatic activity of thrombin or factor Xa, have been shown to be as effective as and safer than traditional anticoagulation for VTE prophylaxis in no-cancer patients. However, related studies that focused on the anticoagulation in cancer patients are lacked, and almost no net clinical benefit (NCB) analyses that quantified both VTE events and bleeding events have been addressed in this fragile population. Therefore, we aim to investigate this issue using a systematic review and NCB analysis. A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the VTE events and major bleeding of NOACs and traditional anticoagulants in patients with or without cancer. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of VTE and bleeding events were calculated using a random-effects model. The primacy outcome of narrow NCB was calculated by pooling ORs of VTE and major bleeding, with a weighting of 1.0. Similarly, the broad NCB was calculated by pooling ORs of VTE and clinically relevant bleeding. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 test and Q statistic, and subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of different patients (VTE patients or acutely ill patients), comparators (vitamin-K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin), and follow-up duration (≤6 months or >6 months). Overall, 9 RCTs including 41,454 patients were enrolled, of which 2,902 (7%) were cancer patients, and 38,552 (93%) were no-cancer patients; 20,712 (50%) were administrated with NOACs and 20,742 (50%) were administrated with traditional anticoagulants. The use of NOACs had a superior NCB than traditional anticoagulation in both cancer patients (OR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.85 for narrow NCB; OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.61–0.91 for broad NCB) and no-cancer patients (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.54-0.96 for narrow NCB; OR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.67–1.04 for broad NCB), with the estimates mainly from VTE patients receiving long-term warfarin treatment. In conclusion, NOACs may represent a better NCB property compared to traditional anticoagulants in cancer patients who need long-term anticoagulation treatment.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the standard treatment options for advanced lung cancer. However, adverse events (AEs), particularly immune–related AEs (irAEs), caused by these drugs have aroused public attention. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the risk of AEs across different ICI–based regimens in patients with advanced lung cancer.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception to 19 April 2021) for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more treatments, with at least one ICI administered to patients with advanced lung cancer. The primary outcomes were treatment–related AEs and irAEs, including grade 1–5 and grade 3–5. The secondary outcomes were grade 1–5 and grade 3–5 irAEs in specific organs. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted for chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy, dual ICIs therapy, and dual ICIs + chemotherapy for all safety outcomes. Node–splitting analyses were performed to test inconsistencies in network. Sensitivity analyses were adopted by restricting phase III RCTs and studies that enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer.ResultsOverall, 38 RCTs involving 22,178 patients with advanced lung cancer were enrolled. Both pooled incidence and NMA indicated that treatments containing chemotherapy increased the risk of treatment–related AEs when compared with ICI-based regimens without chemotherapy. As for grade 1–5 irAEs, dual ICIs + chemotherapy was associated with the highest risk of irAEs (probability in ranking first: 50.5%), followed by dual-ICI therapy (probability in ranking second: 47.2%), ICI monotherapy (probability in ranking third: 80.0%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (probability in ranking fourth: 98.0%), and finally chemotherapy (probability in ranking fifth: 100.0%). In grade 3–5 irAEs, subtle differences were observed; when ranked from least safe to safest, the trend was dual ICIs therapy (60.4%), dual ICIs + chemotherapy (42.5%), ICI monotherapy (76.3%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (95.0%), and chemotherapy (100.0%). Furthermore, detailed comparisons between ICI–based options provided irAE profiles based on specific organ/system and severity.ConclusionsIn consideration of overall immune–related safety profiles, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy might be a better choice among ICI–based treatments for advanced lung cancer. The safety profiles of ICI–based treatments are various by specific irAEs and their severity.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42021268650

No abstract