Efficacy and Safety of Etrasimod in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Isolated Proctitis: Results From the Phase 3 ELEVATE UC Clinical Programme.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pivotal trials in ulcerative colitis have historically excluded patients with isolated proctitis. Etrasimod is an oral, oncedaily, selective sphingosine 1phosphate1,4,5 receptor modulator for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. This post hoc analysis assessed efficacy and safety of etrasimod 2 mg once daily in patients with isolated proctitis (centrally read) from the phase 3 ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12 trials. METHODS: Patients, including those with isolated proctitis (<10 cm rectal involvement) who met all other inclusion criteria in ELEVATE UC 52 and ELEVATE UC 12, were randomised 2:1 to receive etrasimod or placebo. Primary, secondary and other identified efficacy endpoints and safety were assessed. RESULTS: We analysed data from 64 and 723 patients at Week 12 (both trials pooled), and 36 and 397 patients at Week 52 (ELEVATE UC 52 only) with isolated proctitis and more extensive colitis (≥10 cm rectal involvement), respectively. Patients with isolated proctitis receiving etrasimod demonstrated significant improvements versus placebo, including clinical remission rates at Weeks 12 (42.9% vs 13.6%) and 52 (44.4% vs 11.1%), endoscopic improvement (52.4% vs 22.7%) at Week 12 and bowel urgency numerical rating scale score at Week 12 (all p<0.01). Generally similar trends were observed in patients with more extensive colitis. Safety was consistent across subgroups, with no new findings. CONCLUSIONS: Etrasimod demonstrated significant improvements versus placebo in patients with isolated proctitis, and those with more extensive disease, in most efficacy endpoints at Week 12 and 52.

Real-World Treatment Patterns among Patients with Alopecia Areata in the USA: A Retrospective Claims Analysis.

Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disorder characterized by hair loss, for which there are few treatment options. This claims-based study characterized recent real-world treatment patterns among patients in the USA with alopecia areata, including the subtypes alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, in the first year after diagnosis of an episode of alopecia areata. Approximately 5% of all patients (adults (age ≥ 18 years), n = 7,703; adolescents (age 12-17 years), n = 595) had alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis. Corticosteroids were the most common first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) treatments. The mean time from diagnosis of alopecia areata to initiation of 1L treatment was 2.2 days for adults and 2.6 days for adolescents; mean 1L duration was 76.9 and 64.3 days, respectively. For adults (57.5%) and adolescents (59.7%) with 2L therapy, the mean time from 1L discontinuation to 2L initiation was 57.2 and 53.6 days, respectively; the mean duration of 2L treatment was 55.5 and 50.1 days, respectively. More patients with vs without alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis initiated 2L therapy (adults: 71.9% vs 56.8%; adolescents: 71.4% vs 58.9%). The proportion of days covered during the first year post-diagnosis was 36.7% (adults) and 34.1% (adolescents). These results highlight the substantial disease burden of alopecia areata and a need for more effective treatments.

Trends in Prevalence and Incidence of Alopecia Areata, Alopecia Totalis, and Alopecia Universalis Among Adults and Children in a US Employer-Sponsored Insured Population.

Importance: Alopecia areata (AA) is characterized by nonscarring hair loss of the scalp, face, and/or body. Alopecia totalis (AT) and alopecia universalis (AU) involve complete loss of the scalp and body hair, respectively. The epidemiology of AA in the US remains unclear, having previously been extrapolated from older studies that were limited to specific geographic areas or clinical settings, or from self-reported data. Objective: To estimate the annual prevalence and incidence of AA and AT and/or AU (AT/AU) in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted from January 2016 to December 2019 and included enrollees in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental databases and their dependents, with plan enrollment during each study calendar year and the year prior. Exposures: Prevalent cases were identified by 1 or more claims for AA or AT/AU (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes L63.x, L63.0, L63.1) during each year of interest or the year prior. Incident cases were identified by 1 or more claims for AA or AT/AU during a specific year and no diagnosis the year prior. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual incidence and prevalence rates were calculated and stratified by age, sex, and region. National employer-sponsored insurance population estimates were obtained using population-based weights. Results: Among eligible patients (2016: n = 18 368 [mean (SD) age, 40.6 (17.9) years; 12 295 women (66.9%)]; 2017: n = 14 372 [mean (SD) age, 39.6 (17.7) years; 9195 women (64.0%)]; 2018: n = 14 231 [mean (SD) age, 38.9 (17.3) years; 8998 women (63.2%)]; 2019: n = 13 455 [mean (SD) age, 39.1 (17.4) years; 8322 women (61.9%)]), AA prevalence increased from 0.199% (95% CI, 0.198%-0.200%) in 2016 to 0.222% (95% CI, 0.221%-0.223%) in 2019. Roughly 5% to 10% of prevalent and incident cases of AA were AT/AU. The prevalence of AT/AU increased from 0.012% (95% CI, 0.012%-0.013%) to 0.019% (95% CI, 0.018%-0.019%) from 2016 to 2019. Incidence of AA per 100 000 person-years ranged from 87.39 (95% CI, 86.84-87.96) in 2017 to 92.90 (95% CI, 92.35-93.45) in 2019. Incidence of AT/AU ranged from 7.09 (95% CI, 6.94-7.25) in 2017 to 8.92 (95% CI, 8.75-9.09) in 2016. Prevalence and incidence of AA and AT/AU were higher among female vs male individuals, adults vs children and adolescents, and in the Northeast vs other regions. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that these recent AA prevalence and incidence estimates could help improve current understanding of the disease burden. Further research is warranted to elucidate subpopulation differences and trends in AA in the broader US population.

Effectiveness of crizotinib versus entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer using clinical and real-world data.

Aims: To compare clinical trial results for crizotinib and entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and compare clinical trial data and real-world outcomes for crizotinib. Patients & methods: We analyzed four phase I-II studies using a simulated treatment comparison (STC). A STC of clinical trial versus real-world evidence compared crizotinib clinical data to real-world outcomes. Results: Adjusted STC found nonsignificant trends favoring crizotinib over entrectinib: objective response rate, risk ratio = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.85-1.28); median duration of response, mean difference = 16.11 months (95% CI: -1.57- 33.69); median progression-free survival, mean difference = 3.99 months (95% CI: -6.27-14.25); 12-month overall survival, risk ratio = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.90-1.12). Nonsignificant differences were observed between the trial end point values and the real-world evidence for crizotinib. Conclusions: Crizotinib and entrectinib have comparable efficacy in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Real-World Outcomes Among Crizotinib-Treated Patients with ROS1-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Community Oncology-Based Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib was the first oral targeted therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on 11 March 2016, for c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data to support long-term clinical benefit in a real-world setting are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess real-world clinical outcomes among patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC treated with crizotinib in the US community oncology setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using iKnowMed electronic health record data to identify adult patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC who initiated crizotinib between 17 January 2013 (time of the addition of crizotinib for ROS1-positive NSCLC to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines) and 1 June 2019 with a potential follow-up period through 1 December 2019. Patient characteristics were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to evaluate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). A Cox proportional hazards model was conducted to determine factors associated with OS. RESULTS: The study cohort included 38 ROS1-positive patients treated with crizotinib. The median age was 68 years (interquartile range 60.0-73.0) and 65.8% were female. Over 50% were current/former smokers, and 18.4% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2. Overall, 21 (55.3%) patients remained on crizotinib, 10 (26.3%) had evidence of subsequent treatment, and 16 (42.1%) died. The median TTD, TTNT, and OS were 25.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.2-not reached (NR)], 25.0 months (95% CI 5.2-61.0), and 36.2 months (95% CI 15.9-NR), respectively. In a multivariate Cox regression model, ECOG performance status of 2 was associated with a 4.9-fold higher risk of death (hazard ratio = 4.9; 95% CI 1.1-21.4) compared to ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. CONCLUSIONS: This ROS1-positive NSCLC real-world population was older and had a higher proportion of smokers and of patients with poorer ECOG performance status than those investigated in clinical trials. Nevertheless, our findings support the clinical benefit of crizotinib in this patient population with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC.

Patients' Experiences in Transitioning to Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Qualitative Interviews.

INTRODUCTION: Critical gaps exist in the understanding of the continuum of multiple sclerosis (MS) progression, particularly with regard to the patient experience prior to and during the transition from relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) to secondary-progressive MS (SPMS) stages. To date, there are no clear diagnostic criteria in the determination of the clinical transition. We report here the use of patient experience data to support the development of a qualitative conceptual model of MS that describes the patient journey of transition from active-relapsing disease to progressive MS. METHODS: The study used a single-encounter, multicenter, qualitative observational study design that included a targeted literature review and individual, in-depth interviews with adult patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of SPMS and their adult care partners. Descriptions of symptoms and impacts of RRMS and SPMS were extracted from the literature review and used to support development of the interview guide and conceptual model. RESULTS: Participants described a slow progression in terms of change in symptoms over time, including both the development of new symptoms and the worsening of existing symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model of the transitionary period from RRMS to SPMS expands the current understanding of the progression of MS from the patient and care partner perspectives.

Health care resource utilization and disease modifying treatment use in multiple sclerosis patients by age and insurance type.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) and disease modifying treatment (DMT) use among US adults <65 years with multiple sclerosis (MS), across commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims data from commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) plans were extracted for MS patients age 18 - 64 identified between 1 January 2014 and 31 May 2017. Comparisons were made between commercial and MAPD enrollees for all-cause HCRU and DMT use over 1 year, overall and by 5 year age groups. RESULTS: A total of 28,427 MS patients were identified; two-thirds (67%) had commercial coverage. MAPD patients had statistically significantly higher mean counts of all-cause inpatient, emergency room (ER) and ambulatory visits compared to commercial patients. The significant differences were evident in all age groups ≥30 years, except for ER visits in the 40-44 and 60-64 age groups. MAPD patients had statistically significantly lower prevalence of DMT use compared to commercial patients in all age groups starting at ≥35 years. CONCLUSION: MAPD patients had a higher burden of medical HCRU compared to their commercially insured counterparts, most likely due primarily to their more advanced disease state and higher level of MS-related disability. Reasons for lower prevalence of DMT use among MAPD patients may include their more advanced disease state, older age and higher prevalence of comorbid conditions compared with commercially insured patients, as well as more restrictive formularies for MAPD vs. commercial plans. These findings suggest that there may be an opportunity for recently approved DMTs indicated for active secondary progressive MS to fulfill an unmet need for treatment among MS patients <65 years without contraindicated comorbid conditions who are enrolled in MAPD plans. Novel therapies under development to delay progression may help keep MS patients of working age in the work force.

Identifying disability level in multiple sclerosis patients in a U.S.-based health plan claims database.

AIMS: In clinical trials, disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) is measured by the Kurtzke expanded disability status scale (EDSS), which is not captured in routine clinical care in the U.S. This study developed a claims-based disability score (CDS) based on the EDSS for assigning MS disability level in a U.S. claims database. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of patients with MS in the U.S., utilized adjudicated health plan claims data linked to electronic medical records (EMRs) data. Patients were identified between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016 and indexed on the first date of MS diagnosis. The CDS was developed to assign disability level at baseline using claims and ambulatory EMR records observed over the 1-year baseline period. All-cause healthcare costs were assessed by baseline disability level to validate the CDS. RESULTS: In total, 45,687 patients were identified in claims (full sample) and 1,599 linked to EMR (core sample). Over half of patients in both samples were classified with mild disability at baseline. Adjusted healthcare costs in patients with moderate and severe disability were 15% (p<.0001) and 20% higher, respectively, than in patients with mild disability at baseline in the full sample. Disease-modifying therapy (DMT) costs accounted for 89%, 82%, and 78% of outpatient pharmacy costs in patients with mild, moderate, and severe disability, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CDS is the first claims-based measure of MS disability utilizing data from EMR. This novel measure advances the opportunity to examine outcomes by disability accumulation in the absence of standard markers of disease progression. Although formal validation of the CDS was not possible due to lack of available EDSS in the EMR, the economic burden results align with prior publications and show that healthcare costs increase with increasing disability. Future validation studies of the CDS are warranted.

Do Employees From Less-Healthy Communities Use More Care and Cost More? Seeking to Establish a Business Case for Investment in Community Health.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined the impact of community health on employers. We explored whether employed adults and their adult dependents living in less-healthy communities in the greater Philadelphia region used more care and incurred higher costs to employers than employees from healthier communities. METHODS: We used a multi-employer database to identify adult employees and dependents with continuous employment and mapped them to 31 zip code regions. We calculated community health scores at the regional level, by using metrics similar to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) County Health Rankings but with local data. We used descriptive analyses and multilevel linear modeling to explore relationships between community health and 3 outcome variables: emergency department (ED) use, hospital use, and paid claims. Business leaders reviewed findings and offered insights on preparedness to invest in community health improvement. RESULTS: Poorer community health was associated with high use of ED services, after controlling for age and sex. After including a summary measure of racial composition at the zip code region level, the relationship between community health and ED use became nonsignificant. No significant relationships between community health and hospitalizations or paid claims were identified. Business leaders expressed interest in further understanding health needs of communities where their employees live. CONCLUSION: The health of communities in which adult employees and dependents live was associated with ED use, but similar relationships were not seen for hospitalizations or paid claims. This finding suggests a need for more primary care access. Despite limited quantitative evidence, business leaders expressed interest in guidance on investing in community health improvement.