Establishing Meaningful Change Thresholds in Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in ALTA-1L Trial.

OBJECTIVES: An earlier study from the ALTA-1L trial of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer demonstrated that brigatinib produces superior health-related quality of life (QoL) outcomes over crizotinib. This study aimed to derive meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 to refine the earlier results. METHODS: Patients from the ALTA-1L trial were administered the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 questionnaires. Responses were analyzed using anchor-based analysis, graphical analysis, distribution-based analysis, longitudinal responder analysis, and time to deterioration. RESULTS: The patient-reported outcome population comprised 262 patients who completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and at least 1 follow-up timepoint. Both anchors (QLQ-C30 items for overall health and QoL) had correlations >0.40 or < -0.40 with all functioning domains, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and all dyspnea scores. Within-group analysis for most scales found the derived MCT was consistent with a cutoff of 10 points for classifying individual-patient change, except for 3-item dyspnea. The probability of improvement/remaining stable was significantly greater in the brigatinib group over crizotinib for the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning, appetite loss, and constipation domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study derived MCTs for EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 domains that may be applied in future studies and again demonstrated the superiority of brigatinib over crizotinib in health-related QoL outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of bleeding outcomes in severe haemophilia A: Comparing valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene therapy, emicizumab prophylaxis, and FVIII replacement prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: Head-to-head evaluation of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, the first gene therapy approved for haemophilia A, with emicizumab is not available. Therefore, phase 3 trial data were indirectly compared. AIM: To compare bleeding rates in trials evaluating 6 × 1013  vg/kg valoctocogene roxaparvovec (GENEr8-1; NCT03370913), 1.5 mg/kg emicizumab dosed every week (HAVEN 3; NCT02847637), and FVIII prophylaxis (270-902) in participants with severe haemophilia A (FVIII ≤1 IU/dL). METHODS: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab and FVIII prophylaxis as used in 270-902 versus emicizumab cross-trial comparisons were performed using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Individual participant data from GENEr8-1 and 270-902 were weighted to equalise aggregate participant baseline characteristics from HAVEN 3. After MAIC weighting, annualised bleeding rates (ABR) and proportions of participants without bleeds were compared for treated bleeds, all bleeds, treated joint bleeds, and treated spontaneous bleeds. RESULTS: After MAIC weighting, ABR for all bleeds was statistically significantly lower with valoctocogene roxaparvovec than emicizumab (rate ratio [95% CI], .55 [.33-.93]). Additionally, significantly higher proportions of participants had no treated joint bleeds (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.75 [1.20-6.31]) and no treated bleeds (3.25 [1.53-6.90]) with valoctocogene roxaparvovec versus emicizumab. When compared with the mainly standard half-life FVIII prophylaxis regimens in 270-902, mean ABRs (except for all bleeds) were significantly lower, and significantly higher proportions reported 0 bleeds for all outcomes with emicizumab. CONCLUSION: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec provided generally lower bleeding rates and higher probability of no bleeds, including treated joint bleeds, than emicizumab. Emicizumab was more effective than FVIII prophylaxis regimens used in 270-902.

Mobocertinib (TAK-788) in EGFR Exon 20 Insertion+ Metastatic NSCLC: Patient-Reported Outcomes from EXCLAIM Extension Cohort.

Mobocertinib, an oral, first-in-class epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor selective for EGFR exon 20 insertions (ex20ins), achieved durable responses in adults with previously treated EGFR ex20ins+ metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in the EXCLAIM extension cohort of a phase 1/2 study (N = 96; NCT02716116). We assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with mobocertinib 160 mg once daily (28-day cycles) in EXCLAIM (N = 90) with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3.0, lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13), EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and selected PRO Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) questionnaire. Median treatment duration was 6.8 (range, 0.0-18.8) months (median follow-up: 13.0 [0.7-18.8] months; data cutoff: 1 November 2020). Clinically meaningful improvements in lung cancer symptoms measured by EORTC QLQ-LC13 were observed for dyspnea (54.4% of patients), cough (46.7%), and chest pain (38.9%), evident at cycle 2 and throughout treatment (least-squares mean [LSM] changes from baseline: dyspnea, -3.2 [p = 0.019]; cough, -9.3 [p < 0.001]; chest pain, -8.2 [p < 0.001]). EORTC QLQ-C30 results indicated no statistically significant changes in global health status/quality of life (LSM change from baseline: -1.8 [p = 0.235]). On symptom scores, significant worsening from baseline was observed for diarrhea (LSM change from baseline: +34.1; p < 0.001) and appetite loss (+6.6; p = 0.004), while improvements were observed for dyspnea (LSM change from baseline: -5.1 [p = 0.002]), insomnia (-6.5 [p = 0.001]), and constipation (-5.7 [p < 0.001]). EQ-5D-5L health status was maintained. Common PRO-CTCAE symptoms were diarrhea, dry skin, rash, and decreased appetite (mostly low grade); in the first 24 weeks of treatment, 64.4% of patients had worsening diarrhea frequency and 67.8% had worsening dry skin severity. Overall, PROs with mobocertinib showed clinically meaningful improvement in lung cancer-related symptoms, with health-related quality of life maintained despite changes in some adverse event symptom scales.

High-dose dexmedetomidine for sedation in the intensive care unit: an evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is an α(2)-receptor agonist used for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although dexmedetomidine is labeled for sedation in critically ill patients at doses up to 0.7 µg/kg/h, recent studies have used more liberal dosing regimens. However, to our knowledge, no study has assessed the clinical impact of doses greater than 0.7 µg/kg/h when compared to doses within the Food and Drug Administration--approved labeling. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of high (HD) and low (LD) doses of dexmedetomidine for sedation in the ICU. METHODS: This retrospective study included a sample of patients who received dexmedetomidine in medical, surgical, medical/surgical, and cardiothoracic ICUs between January 1, 2008, and December 1, 2009. Patients were included in the LD group if their maximum dose was less than 0.7 µg/kg/h or in the HD group if any dose was more than 0.7 µg/kg/h. Efficacy was determined by the percentage of Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores for each patient maintained at goal sedation (-1 to +1), and safety was determined by the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia. RESULTS: Forty-three of 133 patients received HD dexmedetomidine. Patients in the LD group had a significantly higher percentage of RASS scores at goal (60.0% vs 48.6%; p = 0.03), while those in the HD group experienced a higher percentage of RASS scores classified as undersedated (19.2% vs 4.9%; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension or bradycardia between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with HD dexmedetomidine had fewer RASS scores at goal. Our data suggest that increasing the dose of dexmedetomidine may not enhance sedation efficacy or lead to an increased incidence of adverse effects. Patients who have not achieved goal sedation at doses of 0.7 µg/kg/h or less may not respond further to increased doses.