Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (DESTINY-Breast02): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In DESTINY-Breast02, patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer who received trastuzumab deruxtecan demonstrated superior progression-free and overall survival compared with those receiving treatment of physician's choice. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and hospitalisation data. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial conducted at 227 clinical sites globally, enrolled patients had to be aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on trastuzumab emtansine and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using block randomisation (block size of 3) to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan (5·4 mg/kg intravenously once every 21 days) or treatment of physician's choice by an independent biostatistician using an interactive web-based system. Patients and investigators remained unmasked to treatment. Treatment of physician's choice was either capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1-14) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 then 6 mg/kg once per day) or capecitabine (1000 mg/m2) plus lapatinib (1250 mg orally once per day on days 1-21), with a 21-day schedule. The primary endpoint, which was progression-free survival based on blinded independent central review, has previously been reported. PROs were assessed in the full analysis set (all patients randomly assigned to the study) using the oncology-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), breast cancer-specific EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Breast 45 (QLQ-BR45), and the generic HRQoL EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Analyses included change from baseline and time to definitive deterioration for PRO variables of interest and hospitalisation-related endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03523585, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2018, and Dec 31, 2020, 608 patients were randomly assigned to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=406; two did not receive treatment) or treatment of physician's choice (n=202; seven did not receive treatment). Overall, 603 patients (99%) were female and five (<1%) were male. The median follow-up was 21·5 months (IQR 15·2-28·4) in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18·6 months (IQR 8·8-26·0) in the treatment of physician's choice group. Median treatment duration was 11·3 months (IQR 6·2-20·5) in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and approximately 4·5 months in the treatment of physician's choice group (4·4 months [IQR 2·5-8·7] with trastuzumab; 4·6 months [2·1-8·9] with capecitabine; and 4·5 months [2·1-10·6] with lapatinib). Baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS) scores were similar with trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=393) and treatment of physician's choice (n=187), and remained stable with no clinically meaningful change (defined as ≥10-point change from baseline) over time. Median time to definitive deterioration was delayed with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with treatment of physician's choice for the primary PRO variable EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS (14·1 months [95% CI 10·4-18·7] vs 5·9 months [4·3-7·9]; HR 0·5573 [0·4376-0·7099], p<0·0001) and all other prespecified PROs (EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales, EORTC QLQ-BR45 arm and breast symptoms, and EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale). Patient hospitalisation rates were similar in the trastuzumab deruxtecan (92 [23%] of 406) and treatment of physician's choice (41 [20%] of 202) groups; however, median time to hospitalisation was 133 days (IQR 56-237) with trastuzumab deruxtecan versus 83 days (30-152) with treatment of physician's choice. INTERPRETATION: Overall, GHS and quality of life were maintained for both treatment groups, with prespecified PRO variables favouring trastuzumab deruxtecan over treatment of physician's choice, suggesting that despite a longer treatment duration, there was no detrimental impact on patient health-related quality of life with trastuzumab deruxtecan. When considered with efficacy and safety data from DESTINY-Breast02, these results support the overall benefit of trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca.

Cost-effectiveness model of trastuzumab deruxtecan as second-line treatment in HER2-positive unresectable and/or metastatic breast cancer in Finland.

OBJECTIVES: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) was recently recommended by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use as a treatment for adult patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, who had received a prior anti-HER2-based regimen. In our study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd compared with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for this indication in Finland. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival analysis model was developed with a payer's perspective. Time to event data from the DESTINY-Breast03 (DB-03) trial were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon either directly-for progression-free survival and time to treatment discontinuation-or using an alternative approach utilizing long-term T-DM1 survival data and DB-03 data-for overall survival. Discount rates of 3% were applied for costs and effects. Inputs were sourced from the Medicinal Products Database from Kela, Helsinki University Hospital service price list, Finnish Medicines Agency assessments, clinical experts, and DB-03. Sensitivity analyses were performed to characterize and demonstrate parameter uncertainties in the model. RESULTS: Total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) gained for T-DXd compared with T-DM1 were 1.93 and 2.56, respectively. Incremental costs for T-DXd compared with T-DM1 were €106,800, resulting in an ICER of €55,360 per QALY gained and an ICER of €41,775 per LY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the hazard ratio of T-DXd vs T-DM1 for OS was the most influential parameter. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed similar results to the base case. CONCLUSIONS: T-DXd is cost-effective based on surrogate WTP thresholds of €72,000 and €139,000 per QALY.

Methods for Estimating Long-Term Outcomes for Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in HER2-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Breast Cancer After Two or More Anti-HER2 Therapies.

BACKGROUND: DESTINY-Breast01 (NCT03248492) is a phase II single-arm trial evaluating trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in adults with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) unresectable or metastatic breast cancer (u/mBC) who have received two or more prior anti-HER2 therapies. OBJECTIVES: Objectives were to explore approaches for estimating long-term overall survival (OS) with T-DXd from immature data (June 2020 data-cut; median follow-up 20.5 months), and compare predicted long-term outcomes with UK-recommended non-targeted therapies eribulin, capecitabine, and vinorelbine. METHODS: Two methods were used to model T-DXd long-term OS: (1) applying a hazard ratio (HR) to the OS curve for another HER2 targeted therapy (third-line trastuzumab emtansine [T-DM1]) with longer trial follow-up; and (2) extrapolating T-DXd OS data directly. Comparator OS was based on direct extrapolation of published data (comparison with vinorelbine OS was not possible). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using a previously published model of utility. RESULTS: Both extrapolation methods demonstrated longer mean/median OS with T-DXd versus eribulin, and capecitabine (44.7/32.9 months [applying an HR to the T-DM1 OS curve]; 47.7/29.9 months [using direct extrapolation]; vs 11.3/9.2, and 17.8/13.6 months, respectively), translating to 2.3, 2.3, 0.6, and 0.9 discounted QALYs. CONCLUSION: Alternative methods produced consistent results, showing T-DXd is associated with substantial gains in OS and QALYs versus eribulin, and capecitabine. Modelled median OS results were similar to a later data-cut (median of 29.1 months, March 2021 data-cut). The modelling approach in which an HR was applied to the T-DM1 OS curve informed a submission to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Prevalence and Patient Outcomes of Adult Primary Hypercholesterolemia and Dyslipidemia in the UK: Longitudinal Retrospective Study Using a Primary Care Dataset from 2009 to 2019.

Background: Guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias recommend intensive low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) control through lifestyle advice and lipid-lowering drugs to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objective: This retrospective study aimed to characterize the adult primary care population with primary hypercholesterolemia (PH)/mixed dyslipidemia (MD). Methods: Data on adults with PH/MD between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2019 in the UK were extracted from linked primary Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics) datasets and analyzed. Results: A total of 279,221 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 8.6 years. Crude prevalence of PH/MD increased from 13.5% in 2009 to 23.5% by 2019. The incidence decreased from 176 to 49 per 100,000 population. Mean age of the cohort was 58 years, baseline LDL-C was 4.32 mmol/L, 19.6% had atherosclerotic CVD, 30.1% diabetes, and 8.5% heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Estimated LDL-C reductions of 40% and 50% were achieved in 2.6% and 2.3% of patients, respectively. Most received moderate-intensity statins as monotherapy (62.4%); high-intensity statins were used less frequently (24.3% as initial treatment). Less than 10% of patients received ezetimibe plus statins of different intensities. Conclusion: The prevalence of dyslipidemia doubled between 2009 and 2019, likely due to more systematic identification of PH/MD. A large proportion of patients with PH/MD are of high and very high CV risk, remain suboptimally treated in terms of lipid lowering, and may experience CV events with associated non-negligible clinical and economic sequelae. Despite intensive LDL-C-lowering recommendations, these do not translate in clinical practice to the wider population.

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses for combinations of prevention strategies against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection: a general trend.

BACKGROUND: Due to the arrival of multi-valent HPV vaccines, it is more and more important to have a better understanding of the relationship between vaccination and screening programmes. This review aimed to: (1) collect published evidence on the cost-effectiveness profile of different HPV prevention strategies and, in particular, those combining vaccination with changes in screening practices; (2) explore the cost-effectiveness of alternative preventive strategies based on screening and vaccination. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in order to identify the relevant studies regarding the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies against HPV infection. Analysis comparing the modelling approaches between studies was made along with an assessment of the magnitude of impact of several factors on the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. RESULTS: A total of 18 papers were quantitatively summarised within the narrative. A high degree of heterogeneity was found in terms of how HPV prevention strategies have been assessed in terms of their economic and epidemiological impact, with variation in screening practice and valence of HPV vaccination found to have large implications in terms of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated synergies between screening and vaccination. New prevention strategies involving multi-valence vaccination, HPV DNA test screening, delayed commencement and frequency of screening could be implemented in the future. Strategies implemented in the future should be chosen with care, and informed knowledge of the potential impact of all possible prevention strategies. Highlighted in this review is the difficulty in assessing multiple strategies. Appropriate modelling techniques will need to be utilised to assess the most cost-effective strategies.