Improvement of patient-reported outcomes in severe allergic asthma by omalizumab treatment: the real life observational PROXIMA study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the prevalence of perennial versus seasonal allergic asthma in Italy are lacking; moreover, there is limited evidence on the effect of omalizumab on patient-reported outcomes in Italian patients with severe allergic asthma. PROXIMA, an observational, multicenter study, was designed to assess the prevalence of perennial versus seasonal allergic asthma (cross-sectional phase) and the effect of omalizumab on improving illness perception, quality of life (QoL) and asthma control of Italian patients with severe allergic asthma (longitudinal phase). METHODS: The study included a cross-sectional phase (n = 357) and a longitudinal phase (n = 123): during the longitudinal phase, patients received omalizumab (75-600 mg subcutaneously every month) and were followed-up for 12 months. The primary parameter of cross-sectional phase was prevalence of perennial allergic asthma and that of longitudinal phase was proportion of patients with asthma control (assessed using asthma control questionnaire [ACQ]). Secondary parameters assessed were patients' disease perception, level of asthma control, exacerbation rate during both cross-sectional and longitudinal phases, and patients' compliance to and persistence with omalizumab, and patients' QoL during the longitudinal phase. RESULTS: Most patients (95.8%) had perennial allergies; 81% had polysensitization. Of 99 patients in the per-protocol set, 95 (95.96% [95% CI: 89.98-98.89%]) achieved asthma control (ACQ < 4) at both 6 and 12 months of omalizumab treatment; ACQ score decreased after 6 and 12 months (P < 0.0001). Omalizumab treatment resulted in a significant improvement in QoL and patients' illness perception and 87% decrease in exacerbation rate. The compliance rate with omalizumab was high (73.2%). No new safety signals were identified during treatment. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that in severe allergic asthma, omalizumab improves patient-reported outcomes such as patients' illness perception and QoL, while confirming improvement of asthma control and exacerbation rate reduction in Italian patients.

Outcomes of small-cell lung cancer patients treated with second-line chemotherapy: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) that progress after first-line chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and the evidence of a benefit from second-line (SL) chemotherapy is limited. Patients relapsing or progressing more than 90 days after completion of first-line treatment are considered platinum sensitive and may be rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Topotecan is approved as SL treatment independent of time to progression. This retrospective analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes of SCLC patients who received SL chemotherapy after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 161 patients who received SL chemotherapy for SCLC. Patients were divided into four subgroups by type of SL treatment: (1) platinum-based rechallenge; (2) anthracycline-based regimens; (3) topotecan; (4) other single agents. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for multivariate analysis to investigate factors influencing survival. RESULTS: The median age was 63. There were 125 males and 36 females. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) was 0, 1 and 2 in 12.5%, 62.5% and 25% of patients, respectively. Platinum sensitive/platinum resistant/platinum refractory/unknown=121/29/3/8 patients. Median time to SL chemotherapy was 6.9 months. The median PFS from starting second-line treatment was 4.3 months and median OS was 5.8 months. The overall RR was 22.9%. There was a trend toward higher RR (34.5% vs 17.5%, p for trend: 0.06) and OS (9.2 months vs 5.8 months, p=0.08) for patients with sensitive disease who were rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for the time to SL treatment showed that a platinum-containing regimen achieves better RR, PFS and OS independently of the time to SL chemotherapy and that response to first-line treatment and PS at SL are the only independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome for second-line therapy for SCLC was poor and benefit appeared to be limited to those patients with good PS and rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based rechallenge should be considered as a standard comparator in future randomized controlled trials of SL chemotherapy.

Italian Survey on adjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (ISA).

BACKGROUND: A recent pooled analysis of randomized trials indicated significant improvement in overall survival from cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), depending on disease stage (only in stages II and III) and PS (≤ 1). Post-operative radiotherapy (RT) is optional for pN2 tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate opinions and daily clinical practice of Italian Oncologists about adjuvant treatment of NSCLC, a 46-item questionnaire was delivered via e-mail. RESULTS: Seventy-eight physicians from 68 Centers (out of 98 contacted) returned their questionnaire. Seventy-four, 86, 94, and 78% of them give the indication for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IIIB disease, respectively and 14% in stage IB disease. Stage, PS, and age are taken into consideration evaluating adjuvant approach by 97, 95 and 73%, respectively. Cisplatin-vinorelbine (64%) and cisplatin-gemcitabine (33%), for 4 cycles (81%), are the preferred regimens, while 32% use different regimens. Ninety-two percent indicate RT in pN2 disease and/or positive resection margins. Real Number of patients Needed to Treat (NNT) is probably not completely known/understood and/or used by physicians. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial adherence between clinical daily practice in Italy and scientific progresses is described in this paper, even with some discordances regarding the most appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.

A multicenter, randomized, Phase II study of cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment in patients with poor-prognosis small cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of combined cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine (PEG) and combined cisplatin plus gemcitabine (PG) in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage and poor-prognosis limited-stage small-cell lung carcinoma. METHODS: One hundred forty patients (70 patients in two arms) were randomized to receive either cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on Day 1, etoposide 50 mg/m2 on Days 1-3, and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 or cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on Day 1 plus gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8. Both regimens were recycled every 21 days. RESULTS: In total, 626 cycles were delivered (303 cycles of PEG and 323 cycles of PG), with a median of 4 cycles per patient in both arms. The objective response rate was 63% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 49-71%) for PEG and 57% (95%CI, 43-67%) for PG, with the suggestion of a higher complete response rate in the PEG arm (18.6% and 4.3%, respectively). A similar time to disease progression (6 months in the PEG arm and 7 months in the PG arm) and a similar median survival (9.5 months in the PEG arm and 10 months in the PG arm) were observed in both arms. The PEG regimen was associated with more severe hematologic toxicity in terms of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and a higher rate of treatment delays and dose reductions, whereas nonhematologic toxicities did not differ between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this Phase II randomized trial, the PEG regimen produced a higher complete response rate but more toxicity compared with the PG regimen in patients with extensive-stage or poor-prognosis, limited-stage small cell lung carcinoma.

On the association between date of birth and pollen sensitization: is age an effect modifier?

An association between date of birth and development of allergy has been proposed by prior research. Yet, the presence of a dose-response relationship or any potential effect modification for this association has not been widely studied. The aims of our study were to investigate whether an association between birth during pollen season and symptomatic sensitization to pollens exists, whether this association is stronger for patients with high rather than low allergic reactivity to pollens, and whether this association is modified by the age of the patients. Among 3318 asthmatic and/or rhinitic outpatients, we selected 805 patients sensitized exclusively to pollens (78 with low reactivity [LR] and 727 with high reactivity [HR]) and 629 patients with negative skin-prick tests (SPT) (control group). The association between being born during pollen season (February-July) and each of the pollen reactivity levels was assessed by estimating the odds ratios (OR). HR pollinosis patients were more likely than SPT negative patients of being born in February-July (OR 1.38, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 1.11-1.71). The likelihood of having been born in pollen season significantly increased across the levels of reactivity to pollens (HR > LR > SPT negative). These findings were valid only among patients with an early onset of symptoms. Although the OR for being born in pollen season was 1.91 (95% CI 1.32-2.77) for HR pollinosis patients with onset of symptoms < or = 15 years, it was 1.13 (95% CI 0.87-1.48) for those with later onset of symptoms (test of homogeneity: p = 0.026). Our results suggest that the exposure to allergenic pollens in the first months of life increases the risk of developing clinically relevant sensitization to them, particularly in the first 15 years of life.