Association of Supporting Trial Evidence and Reimbursement for Off-Label Use of Cancer Drugs

Navigating uncharted territory: a case report and literature review on the remarkable response to personalized crizotinib containing combinational therapy in a pazopanib refractory patient with novel alterations

This paper presents a patient with a novel Ig-like-III domain fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR2) alteration (W290_P307>C) along with CDKN2A/B alterations and a cadherin 1 (CDH1) alteration. Initial responsiveness to pazopanib monotherapy was encouraging, yet progression occurred after 7.5 months. Following progression, the molecular tumor board recommended a combination therapy approach comprising pazopanib, crizotinib, and palbociclib to target all of the changed pathways at the same time. Pazopanib was chosen to specifically target the FGFR2 alteration, while crizotinib was selected due to its potential synthetic lethality with the CDH1 alteration. In addition, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib was administered to address the CDKN2A/B alterations. The patient exhibited a remarkable and sustained response to this innovative combination. This case not only underscores the potential of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, exemplified by pazopanib, as a viable alternative for patients without access to pan-FGFR inhibitors, but it also emphasizes their efficacy beyond commonly detected point mutations and rearrangements. Notably, the outstanding response to combination therapy, including crizotinib, in a patient with a CDH1 alteration, further substantiates the preclinical evidence of synthetic lethality between crizotinib and CDH1 alterations. To our knowledge, this represents the first clinical evidence demonstrating the efficacy of crizotinib in a patient with a CDH1 alteration. Through careful dosage adjustments and consideration of individualized genomic information, this case exemplifies the power of personalized medicine in achieving favorable treatment outcomes.

Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Local Insulin Improves Wound Healing: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Wounds are a significant health issue, and reliable and safe strategies to promote repair are needed. Clinical trials have demonstrated that local insulin promotes healing in acute and chronic wounds (ie, reductions of 7% to 40% versus placebo). However, the trials' sample sizes have prevented drawing solid conclusions. Furthermore, no analysis has focused on safety concerns (ie, hypoglycemia). Under the hypothesis that local insulin promotes healing through proangiogenic effects and cellular recruitment, the aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to assess its safety and relative effectiveness using a Bayesian approach.

METHODS

Medline, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and gray literature sources were searched for human studies assessing the local use of insulin versus any comparator since inception to October of 2020. Data on glucose changes and adverse events, wound and treatment characteristics, and healing outcomes were extracted, and an NMA was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 949 reports were found, of which 23 ( n = 1240 patients) were included in the NMA. The studies evaluated six different therapies, and most comparisons were against placebo. NMA showed -1.8 mg/dL blood glucose level change with insulin and a lack of reported adverse events. Statistically significant clinical outcomes identified include reduction in wound size (-27%), increased healing rate (23 mm/day), reduction in Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing scores (-2.7), -10 days to attain complete closure, and an odds ratio of 20 for complete wound closure with insulin use. Likewise, significantly increased neoangiogenesis (+30 vessels/mm 2 ) and granulation tissue (+25%) were also found.

CONCLUSION

Local insulin promotes wound healing without significant adverse events.

Real-world treatment outcomes of medicines used in special situations (off-label and compassionate use) in oncology and hematology: A retrospective study from a comprehensive cancer institution

PURPOSE

Medicines in special situations (MSS) refer to off-label or to unlicensed drugs under investigation (compassionate use). Our objectives were to evaluate characteristics and to estimate overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and the duration of treatment (DT) of MSS used for cancer treatment at a multicentre comprehensive cancer institution.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study on adult cancer patients for whom an MSS treatment was requested (January 2011-December 2020). A descriptive analysis was performed and median OS and EFS and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Survival curves were stratified by type of tumor, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS), age, sex, treatment stage and type of drug (mechanism of action and target).

RESULTS

Treatment was initiated in 2092 episodes (1930 patients) out of 2377 MSS episodes (2189 patients) requested, 33% for hematological treatment and 87% for advanced stage cancer. Median OS (months) was 21.1 (95% CI 19.4-22.7), median EFS was 5.6 (95% CI 5.1-6.0) months, and median DT was 4.5 [0.0; 115.3] months. OS and EFS statistically significantly favored female patients, ECOG PS ≥2 episodes showed worse OS and EFS outcomes (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in survival were found within solid and hematological cancer, disease stage, drug mechanism of action, and type of cancer (p < 0.001) but not for age. Survival outcomes by tumor subtype and drug are presented both globally and separately based on disease stage.

CONCLUSION

MSS uses are practiced across almost all cancer types, mostly for advanced disease. ECOG PS ≥2, along with advanced disease, was related to worse survival. Information about real-world outcomes is valuable and contributes to better decision-making regarding MSS and our experience in this field could be of interest for other colleagues.

Off-label use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of solid tumors: analysis of a nationwide patient sample

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become an indispensable part of clinical practice; however, off-label use of these agents is unknown. We aimed to define the patterns of off-label use of ICIs in a nationwide sample of patients.

METHODS

The online database (Reçetem) was retrospectively searched for off-label use cases related to ICIs approved during a 6-month period. Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors were included. Ethics approval was obtained. Reasons for off-label use were recorded in eight categories and cases were assessed for adherence to current guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed with GNU PSPP version 1.5.3.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-seven reasons for use were recorded for 538 cases related to 527 patients (67.5% male). Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (35.9%) was the most common cancer type. Nivolumab (49%), pembrolizumab (25.5%), and atezolizumab (25%) were commonly used. The top reason for off-label use was lack of approval for the cancer type (37.1%), followed by use beyond the approved treatment line (21%). Nivolumab was more frequently used than atezolizumab and/or pembrolizumab in patients with malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, head and neck cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma (Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, p < 0.001). The guideline adherence rate was 60.5%.

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of ICIs was primarily related to (NSCLC), and most patients were treatment-naïve in contrast to the acceptance that off-label use results from exhausted treatment options. Lack of approval is a significant reason for the off-label use of ICIs.

Characteristics and survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use-a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics and the survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use (OLU) cancer treatment and reimbursement request.

DESIGN

Cohort study using medical record data.

SETTING

Three major cancer centres in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

519 patients with cancer and a reimbursement request for OLU between January 2015 and July 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Characteristics of patients with cancer with and without access to intended OLU. Characteristics included the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) which includes C reactive protein and albumin and discriminates prognostic groups.

RESULTS

OLU was intended for 519 (17%) of 3046 patients with cancer, as first-line treatment in 51% (n=264) and second-line in 31% (n=162). Of the 519 patients, 63% (n=328) were male, 63% (n=329) had solid cancer and 21% (n=111) had a haematological malignancy. Their median overall survival was 23.6 months (95% CI: 19.0 to 32.5). Access to OLU had 389 (75%) patients who were compared with patients without access on average 4.9 years younger (mean; 95% CI: 1.9 to 7.9 years), had a better overall prognosis according to the GPS (51% with GPS of 0 vs 39%; OR: 1.62 (95% CI: 1.01 to 2.59)), had less frequently solid cancer (62% vs 71%; OR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.41 to 1.05)) and advanced stage cancer (53% vs 70%; OR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.75)), were more frequently treatment-naive (53% vs 43%; OR: 1.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.39)) and were more frequently in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment setting (14% vs 5%; OR: 3.39 (95% CI: 1.45 to 9.93)). Patients with access to OLU had a median OS of 31.1 months versus 8.7 months for patients without access (unadjusted HR: 0.54; (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.70)).

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the common assumption, OLU in oncology is typically not primarily intended for patients with exhausted treatment options. Patient characteristics largely differ between patients with and without access to intended OLU. More systematic evaluations of the benefits and harms of OLU in cancer care and the regulation of its access is warranted.

Healthcare policy by other means: Cancer clinical research as "oncopolicy"

Social studies of biomedicine often focus on how exogenous policies shape the medical domain. While policy agendas no doubt affect complex biomedical projects, in the present paper we analyze a different dynamic, namely how oncologists enact policy as part of several flagship precision oncology endeavors. Empirically, the article focuses on the U.S. TAPUR trial, the Dutch DRUP trial, and the Canadian CAPTUR trial, which have recently been joined by similar Scandinavian studies. Taken together, these trials represent innovative forms of clinical research that, beyond their varying experimental nature, have been designed to transform the evidential processes to provide access to biomarker-driven treatments. Along with gathering evidence on effectiveness of off-label targeted therapies, their explicit goals include the recentering of a major professional organization around research, and the reframing of healthcare as a learning system seamlessly connecting epistemic, organizational, and economic issues. Accordingly, we analyze the design and implementation of these trials as a form of (onco)policy by other means.