Real-World Axitinib Use in the United States: A Retrospective Study Using Linked Datasets

Axitinib as a third or further line of treatment in renal cancer: a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Kidney cancer is a lethal neoplasm that affects several thousands of people every year. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common histologic type. Recent developments in the therapeutic approach include antiangiogenic targeted approaches and Immunotherapy. Thus, the therapeutic algorithm of RCC patients and the survival outcomes have changed dramatically.

METHODS

Herein we present a retrospective study of the patients treated in our Department with an antiangiogenic agent -Axitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor- as a third or further line treatment. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS, including the available clinicopathological data of the patients included.

RESULTS

Axitinib was found to be active in patients who received this treatment beyond second line. The toxicity profile of this regimen did not reveal any unknown adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Our real world data reflect that axitinib is a safe and effective option, even beyond the second line.

Survival Benefits of Second-line Axitinib Versus Everolimus After First Line Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background

Targeted therapies significantly improve clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Several new agents have been approved for first- and second-line use. However, there is a lack of compelling evidence comparing sequencing strategies, and available comparative data regarding the real-world effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences are limited.

Materials and Methods

We identified mRCC patients who initiated targeted therapy between January 1, 2008 and May 31, 2017 from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) database of Hungary. Overall survival (OS) and duration of first-line treatment (DFT) were obtained for patients receiving sunitinib-everolimus, sunitinib-axitinib, or pazopanib-everolimus treatment sequences. OS of sunitinib-everolimus and sunitinib-axitinib sequences was also determined for patients having better or worse response to sunitinib first-line therapy.

Results

Median OS was significantly longer among patients treated with sunitinib-axitinib compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus. Median DFT was also significantly longer in the sunitinib-axitinib vs. sunitinib-everolimus group. Sunitinib-axitinib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus in patients with better response to first-line sunitinib in the pooled sunitinib population. In patients with worse response to sunitinib, sunitinib-axitinib was associated with a trend towards greater OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

In this nationwide database analysis, mRCC patients treated with the sunitinib-axitinib sequence had significantly longer OS compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus therapy. The OS benefits of second-line axitinib were consistent among patients with better response to sunitinib defined by DFT values.

A Comprehensive Review of Methods to Measure Oral Oncolytic Dose Intensity Using Retrospective Data

BACKGROUND

Understanding the real-world use of oral oncolytics is essential to assess drug effectiveness. Retrospective analyses using medical and pharmacy claims data allow observation of drug use patterns and health outcomes. However, studies of medication adherence to oral oncolytics may not be sufficient in characterizing exposure because they typically measure refill frequency, not the administered dose or dose changes. Patients who appear fully adherent by traditional measures may be receiving different doses and experiencing differing effectiveness. Relative dose intensity (RDI) is a measure that has been used for intravenous drugs to capture the amount of a particular chemotherapeutic agent administered per unit of time (dose intensity), expressed as the fraction of the amount recommended in evidence-based guidelines. Such a measure would be useful for real-world studies of comparative effectiveness to characterize patient exposure to oral oncolytics.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that used administrative claims data to measure real-world oral oncolytic dose intensity, RDI, or similar constructs.

METHODS

Two health sciences librarians conducted a literature search (PubMed, January 1, 1809-February 6, 2018) including terms in each of the following concept areas: oncology drugs, dosage, and retrospective data sources. At least 2 reviewers scanned each title and abstract of publications retrieved from PubMed. Abstracts that indicated the study reported dose or related concepts and oral oncolytics using retrospective data sources were marked for full-text review. During full-text review, papers were excluded if they did not study oral oncolytics (i.e., only described intravenous chemotherapy); if they did not report drug dosage; or if the study was not retrospective. Resulting studies were included for full-text data extraction.

RESULTS

Of the 1,640 publications returned from the search, 41 were marked for full-text review. Full-text review established that 17 studies addressed a concept related to dose of oral oncolytics using retrospective data. Twenty-four studies were excluded: 11 did not measure dose; 9 did not study oral oncolytics; and 4 were not retrospective studies. Among the 17 articles marked for extraction, 5 articles reported dose intensity or RDI using medical records or electronic health record (EHR) data.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals not only the need for a claims-based measure of dose intensity for oral oncolytics, but also provides a basis for the development of such a measure based on previous EHR-based studies. While several claims data studies have characterized oral oncolytic dosing and duration, we found that no studies combined these dimensions into a single measure such as dose intensity. Methods using EHR data may be translatable to a claims data study. Future research is needed to develop and validate such measures.

DISCLOSURES

Novartis Pharmaceuticals provided funding for this study and is a manufacturer of oral onalytics, which is under study in this article. Arcona and Zacker are employees of Novartis. Slejko reports grants from PhRMA, PhRMA Foundation, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals and consulting fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Stuart reports consulting fees from the University of Maryland during the study. The other authors have nothing to disclose. The preliminary findings of this study were presented in a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018, October 22-25, 2018, in Orlando, FL.

Axitinib in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: design, development, and place in therapy

Since 2005, the approved first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma consists in tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Axitinib is an oral second-generation TKI and a potent VEGFR inhibitor with a half maximal inhibitory concentration for the VEGF family receptors 10-fold lower than other TKIs. Axitinib activity in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients has been studied in various settings and particularly as second-line treatment. In this setting, axitinib with clinically based dose escalation compared to sorafenib has demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival in a randomized Phase III trial leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval. In the first-line setting, axitinib failed to demonstrate improved efficacy over sorafenib, but the field of RCC treatment is rapidly changing with novel TKIs as cabozantinib or the emergence of check point inhibitors as nivolumab and the place of axitinib in therapy is therefore challenged. In this review, we focus on axitinib pharmacological and clinical properties in RCC patients and discuss its place in the treatment of patients with RCC.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: beyond the second-line setting

Treatment options for advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma have advanced considerably in the past decade with the approval of several targeted agents, including axitinib. Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of VEGFRs 1-3, and is well established as second-line treatment. This article summarizes factors to be considered when administering axitinib, such as individualized dose titration and axitinib-associated adverse events, in order to retain patients longer on treatment, which would likely lead to improved efficacy outcomes. In addition, potential clinical perspectives for axitinib beyond the second-line setting, including its role in the first-line setting, sequential therapy, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, and combination therapy with immunotherapy, in particular, immune checkpoint inhibitors, are discussed.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: patient characteristics and treatment patterns in US community oncology centers

AIM

To study patient characteristics and treatment patterns in real-world axitinib use for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PATIENTS & METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of second- or third-line axitinib use between 1 January 2012 and 31 October 2014 in 135 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using the US Oncology Network database.

RESULTS

Overall, 86.7% had clear cell histology, 57.8% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis and 55.6% were poor risk by Heng criteria. Median treatment duration was 4.6 months (range: 0.03-35.49); 80.7% initiated axitinib at 5 mg/day twice daily, and 67.4% maintained this dose. Overall, 77.8% discontinued treatment, mainly due to disease progression (50.5%) and toxicity (21.9%).

CONCLUSION

Axitinib usage patterns were consistent with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines^®. Ease of use among community oncologists and patient tolerance are key features of axitinib.