A revolving research fund to study efficient use of expensive drugs: big wheels keep on turning

Benefits and Limitations of Real-World Patient-Reported Toxicity Symptom Monitoring for Guidelines and Care, as Perceived by Patients, Clinicians, and Guideline Developers

BACKGROUND

Toxicity monitoring should be modernized to include real-world patient-reported data. However, little is known about how stakeholders view the incorporation of real-world patient-reported toxicity symptoms into guidelines. This gap hinders the development of a sustained learning healthcare environment and limits the incorporation of this data into daily care.

METHODS

This qualitative study, reported according to COREQ, involved interviews with 29 plus 10 chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients and 18 CML clinicians, including eight hematologists/guideline developers. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and independently coded in Atlas.ti. A framework, adapted from systematically sourced literature, was used for coding. Codes were assessed as either beneficial or limiting. An expert panel of all CML guideline developers completed and prioritized the identified knowledge gaps through a RAND-modified Delphi procedure.

RESULTS

Thirty-one benefits and limitations of systematically monitoring patient-reported toxicity symptoms in the real world were identified. Compared to an existing framework, novel benefits centered around the use of aggregated data: Participants viewed real-world patient-reported toxicity symptoms as a way to systematically include patients' toxicity symptoms in the guidelines; personalize guideline advice; and fill knowledge gaps. The expert panel agreed on 14 knowledge gaps in chronic myeloid leukemia care that could be addressed through such data. Novel limitations focused on the suitability, acceptance, and applicability of toxicity symptom monitoring in routine clinical practice. Participants felt that this monitoring does not establish a causal link between medication and symptoms, and it has no added value over open conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits and limitations of adopting patient-reported real-world toxicity symptom monitoring need to be leveraged and addressed to ensure maximum value and uptake. Guideline developers viewed aggregated data as beneficial. The identified knowledge gaps provide concrete points of action for CML guideline development.

Dose optimisation to improve access to effective cancer medicines

Access to many cancer medicines on WHO's Essential Medicines List (EML) is restricted because of price, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Other cancer medicines that have been shown to improve survival, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer, are not included on the EML because approved doses and schedules exceed affordable prices in LMICs. Multiple strategies are therefore needed to reduce medicine costs or circumvent these problems, such as optimising doses and schedules. Cancer medicines are approved by regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, following rigorous clinical trials. However, these approvals can involve dosing regimens and treatment schedules that, although effective in showing statistically significant benefits in trials, can be higher in intensity, frequency, or duration than is necessary to achieve meaningful improved survival. In clinical practice, these regimens can lead to concerns about balancing optimal therapeutic outcomes with the risk of side-effects, patient quality of life, and long-term health effects. Various types of evidence can, and should, be used to explore and show near-equivalence of beneficial outcomes from reduced-intensity treatments, including randomised clinical trials, dose-finding phase 1 and 2 studies, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies. The positive effects of proving that lower doses or less intensive schedules retain therapeutic activity include reduced toxicity and large price reductions, leading to better cost-effectiveness and greater access to treatments that improve survival. Beyond regulatory approvals, identification of regimens that have similar outcomes with reduced doses and less intense schedules should be a priority for clinicians and policy makers in the selection process to identify effective medicines at national and global levels.

EBCC-14 manifesto: Addressing disparities in access to innovation for patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe

The European Breast Cancer Council (EBCC) traditionally identifies controversies or major deficiencies in the management of patients with breast cancer and selects a multidisciplinary expert team to collaborate in setting crucial principles and recommendations to improve breast cancer care. The 2024 EBCC manifesto focuses on disparities in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer. There are several reasons for existing disparities both between and within countries. Our recommendations aim to address the stigma of metastatic disease, which has led to significant disparities in access to innovative care regardless of the gross national income of a country. These recommendations are for different stakeholders to promote the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe and worldwide.

Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding

Since the middle of the 20th century, oncology's dose-finding paradigm has been oriented toward identifying a drug's maximum tolerated dose, which is then carried forward into phase 2 and 3 trials and clinical practice. For most modern precision medicines, however, maximum tolerated dose is far greater than the minimum dose needed to achieve maximal benefit, leading to unnecessary side effects. Regulatory change may decrease maximum tolerated dose's predominance by enforcing dose optimization of new drugs. Dozens of already approved cancer drugs require re-evaluation, however, introducing a new methodologic and ethical challenge in cancer clinical trials. In this article, we assess the history and current landscape of cancer drug dose finding. We provide a set of strategic priorities for postapproval dose optimization trials of the future. We discuss ethical considerations for postapproval dose optimization trial design and review three major design strategies for these unique trials that would both adhere to ethical standards and benefit patients and funders. We close with a discussion of financial and reporting considerations in the realm of dose optimization. Taken together, we provide a comprehensive, bird's eye view of the postapproval dose optimization trial landscape and offer our thoughts on the next steps required of methodologies and regulatory and funding regimes.

Projected environmental and public health benefits of extended-interval dosing: an analysis of pembrolizumab use in a US national health system

BACKGROUND

Health care is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to climate change and public health harms. Changes are needed to improve the environmental sustainability of health-care practices, but such changes should not sacrifice patient outcomes or financial sustainability. Alternative dosing strategies that reduce the frequency with which specialty drugs are administered, without sacrificing patient outcomes, are an attractive possibility for improving environmental sustainability. We sought to inform environmentally sustainable cancer care by estimating and comparing the environmental and financial effects of alternative, clinically equivalent strategies for pembrolizumab administration.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using a cohort of patients from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in the USA who received one or more pembrolizumab doses between May 1, 2020, and Sept 30, 2022. Using baseline, real-world administration of pembrolizumab, we generated simulated pembrolizumab use data under three near-equivalent counterfactual pembrolizumab administration strategies defined by combinations of weight-based dosing, pharmacy-level vial sharing and dose rounding, and extended-interval dosing (ie, every 6 weeks). For each counterfactual dosing strategy, we estimated greenhouse gas emissions related to pembrolizumab use across the VHA cohort using a deterministic environmental impact model that estimated greenhouse gas emissions due to patient travel, drug manufacture, and medical waste as the primary outcome measure.

FINDINGS

We identified 7813 veterans who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab-containing therapy in the VHA during the study period. 59 140 pembrolizumab administrations occurred in the study period, of which 46 255 (78·2%) were dosed at 200 mg every 3 weeks, 12 885 (21·8%) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, and 14 955 (25·3%) were coadministered with infusional chemotherapies. Adoption of weight-based, extended-interval pembrolizumab dosing (4 mg/kg every 6 weeks) and pharmacy-level stewardship strategies (ie, dose rounding and vial sharing) for all pembrolizumab infusions would have resulted in 24·7% fewer administration events than baseline dosing (44 533 events vs 59 140 events) and an estimated 200 metric tons less CO2 emitted per year as a result of pembrolizumab use within the VHA (650 tons vs 850 tons of CO2, a relative reduction of 24%), largely due to reductions in distance travelled by patients to receive treatment. Similar results were observed when weight-based and extended-interval dosing were applied only to pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab in combination with oral therapies.

INTERPRETATION

Alternative pembrolizumab administration strategies might have environmental advantages over the current dosing and compounding paradigms. Specialty medication dosing can be optimised for health-care spending and environmental sustainability without sacrificing clinical outcomes.

FUNDING

None.

Interventional pharmacoeconomics for immune checkpoint inhibitors through alternative dosing strategies

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for the treatment of a variety of cancer types. The doses of these drugs, though approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have never been optimised, likely leading to significantly higher doses than required for optimal efficacy. Dose optimisation would hypothetically decrease the risk, severity, and duration of immune-related adverse events, as well as provide an opportunity to reduce costs through interventional pharmacoeconomic strategies such as off-label dose reductions or less frequent dosing. We summarise existing evidence for ICI dose optimisation to advocate for the role of interventional pharmacoeconomics.