ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In New Zealand, trastuzumab is standard therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive early and metastatic breast cancer. Given the requirement for ongoing adjuvant or maintenance treatment and intravenous (IV) delivery, such a regimen consumes considerable health care resources. The development of a subcutaneous (SC) trastuzumab formulation with a short administration time offers the potential to reduce hospital expenditure. The aim of this study was to determine medical resource utilization associated with administration of trastuzumab SC injection via handheld syringe vs trastuzumab IV infusion in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in New Zealand. METHODS: This noninterventional, descriptive study was conducted at the outpatient oncology centers at Auckland City and Tauranga Hospitals. Trained observers recorded times associated with health care professional (HCP) tasks and consumables use associated with preparation and administration of trastuzumab IV or SC in women with early or metastatic breast cancer. The cost for each formulation was calculated as the mean cost of HCP time (based on Pharmaceutical Management Agency hourly rates) plus the mean cost of consumables used. RESULTS: Use of trastuzumab SC vs IV reduced mean chair time by 36.95 minutes and total nurse time by 6.12 minutes; there was a 20.45-minute reduction in pharmacist time when the SC formulation was used. After adding consumable costs, the overall estimated saving with trastuzumab SC vs IV was $76.94 (New Zealand dollars) per patient per cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with trastuzumab IV infusion, administration of trastuzumab via SC injection reduced time spent in the clinic and decreased HCP resources and consumables needed to administer treatment. These reductions could contribute to a decrease in health care costs and an improvement in the efficiency of HER2-positive breast cancer treatment delivery.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are a major cause of morbidity. Post hoc analysis has suggested that bone turnover markers can identify patients at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) among those receiving zoledronic acid. This study sought to evaluate the effect on bone metastases of everolimus alone compared with everolimus plus zoledronic acid. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty treatment-naive patients with RCC and ≥ 1 bone metastases were randomized 1:1 to everolimus (10 mg daily) versus everolimus plus zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously 4-weekly). Bone-specific assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12. Treatment was continued on allocated arm until progression per RECIST 1.1 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1). The primary outcome measure was urine N-telopeptide (uNTX) level, with secondary measures of plasma C-telopeptide (CTX), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Pain [FACT-BP], Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), progression-free survival (PFS), SREs, and safety. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, reduction in mean uNTX and CTX on everolimus plus zoledronic acid relative to everolimus was 68.4% (95% CI, 60.1%-74.9%; P < .0001) and 76.2% (95% CI, 67.3%-82.7%; P < .0001), respectively. There was no evidence of a difference for FACT-BP (P = .5), but evidence was favorable for BPI Severity (P = .05) and BPI Interference (P = .06). Median PFS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-11.2) on everolimus plus zoledronic acid and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.3) on everolimus (P = .009). Median time to first SRE was 9.6 months (95% CI, 4.3-15.5) on everolimus plus zoledronic acid and 5.2 months (95% CI, 1.6-8.2) on everolimus (P = .03). CONCLUSION: In this RCC population, the addition of zoledronic acid to everolimus significantly reduced bone resorption markers and may prolong tumor control.
