Factors influencing COVID-19 mortality among cancer patients: A Brazilian multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients with COVID-19, exploring factors associated with adverse outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study methodically extracted and curated data from electronic medical records (EMRs) of numerous healthcare institutions on cancer patients diagnosed with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between May 2020 and August 2021, to identify risk factors linked to extended hospitalization and mortality. The retrieved information encompassed the patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, including the incidence of prolonged hospitalization, acute complications, and COVID-19-related mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1446 cancer patients with COVID-19 were identified (mean [Standard deviation] age, 59.2 [14.3] years). Most patients were female (913 [63.1%]), non-white (646 [44.7%]), with non-metastatic (818 [56.6%]) solid tumors (1318 [91.1%]), and undergoing chemotherapy (647 [44.7%]). The rate of extended hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 46% (n = 665), which was significantly impacted by age (p = 0.012), sex (p = 0.003), race and ethnicity (p = 0.049), the presence of two or more comorbidities (p = 0.006), hematologic malignancies (p = 0.013), metastatic disease (p = 0.002), and a performance status ≥ 2 (p = 0.001). The COVID-19-related mortality rate was 18.9% (n = 273), and metastatic disease (<0.001), performance status ≥2 (<0.001), extended hospitalization (p = 0.028), renal failure (p = 0.029), respiratory failure (p < 0.001), sepsis (p = 0.004), and shock (p = 0.040) significantly and negatively influenced survival. CONCLUSION: The rate of extended hospitalization and COVID-19-specific death in cancer patients was notably high and could be influenced by comorbidities, cancer treatment status, and clinical fragility. These observations may aid in developing risk counseling strategies regarding COVID-19 in individuals diagnosed with cancer.

Health care resource use among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the PIvOTAL retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Data are scarce regarding real-world health care resource use (HCRU) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An understanding of current clinical practices and HCRU is needed to provide a benchmark for rapidly evolving NSCLC management recommendations and therapeutic options. The objective of this study was to describe real-world HCRU for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This multinational, retrospective chart review study was conducted at academic and community oncology sites in Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil. Deidentified data were drawn from medical records of 1440 adults (≥18 years old) who initiated systemic therapy (2011 to mid-2013) for a new, confirmed diagnosis of advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) NSCLC. We summarized HCRU associated with first and subsequent lines of systemic therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who were hospitalized at least once varied by country from 24% in Italy to 81% in Japan during first-line therapy and from 22% in Italy to 84% in Japan during second-line therapy; overall hospitalization frequency was 2.5-11.1 per 100 patient-weeks, depending on country. Emergency visit frequency also varied among countries (overall from 0.3-5.9 per 100 patient-weeks), increasing consistently from first- through third-line therapy in each country. The outpatient setting was the most common setting of resource use. Most patients in the study had multiple outpatient visits in association with each line of therapy (overall from 21.1 to 59.0 outpatient visits per 100 patient-weeks, depending on country). The use of health care resources showed no regular pattern associated with results of tests for activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements. CONCLUSIONS: HCRU varied across countries. These findings suggest differing approaches to the clinical management of advanced NSCLC among the eight countries. Comparative findings and an understanding of country-specific clinical practices can help to identify areas of need and guide future resource allocation for patients with advanced NSCLC. Further studies evaluating the costs associated with resource use are warranted.

A phase III, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim versus originator filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES:: To compare the efficacy and safety of two filgrastim formulations for controlling chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and to evaluate the non-inferiority of the test drug relative to the originator. METHODS:: This phase III non-inferiority study had a randomized, multicenter, and open-label design. The patients were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 with a follow-up period of 6 weeks for each patient. In both study arms, filgrastim was administered subcutaneously at a daily dose of 5 mg/kg body weight. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade 4 neutropenia in the first treatment cycle. The secondary endpoints were the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the generation of anti-filgrastim antibodies, and the rates of adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, febrile neutropenia, and neutropenia of any grade. RESULTS:: The primary efficacy analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of the test drug compared with the originator drug; the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the rate of neutropenia between the two groups (12.61%) was lower than the established margin of non-inferiority. The two treatments were similar with respect to the secondary endpoints and safety. CONCLUSION:: The efficacy and safety profile of the test drug were similar to those of the originator product based on the rate of grade 4 neutropenia in the first treatment cycle. This study supports Anvisa's approval of the first biosimilar drug manufactured by the Brazilian industry (Fiprima¯).

A phase III, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim versus originator filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of two filgrastim formulations for controlling chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and to evaluate the non-inferiority of the test drug relative to the originator. METHODS: This phase III non-inferiority study had a randomized, multicenter, and open-label design. The patients were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 with a follow-up period of 6 weeks for each patient. In both study arms, filgrastim was administered subcutaneously at a daily dose of 5 mg/kg body weight. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade 4 neutropenia in the first treatment cycle. The secondary endpoints were the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the generation of anti-filgrastim antibodies, and the rates of adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, febrile neutropenia, and neutropenia of any grade. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of the test drug compared with the originator drug; the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the rate of neutropenia between the two groups (12.61%) was lower than the established margin of non-inferiority. The two treatments were similar with respect to the secondary endpoints and safety. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety profile of the test drug were similar to those of the originator product based on the rate of grade 4 neutropenia in the first treatment cycle. This study supports Anvisa’s approval of the first biosimilar drug manufactured by the Brazilian industry (Fiprima¯).