Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Per PD-L1 Stratum In Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Effectiveness Versus Trial Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness of oncological treatments can differ. This study assessed the real-world survival outcomes of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy per PD-L1 stratum in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and compared them to clinical trial results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with nonsquamous and squamous mNSCLC who received first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in 7 Dutch teaching hospitals between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021 were included. Hazard ratios (HR) with confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated to determine the efficacy-effectiveness gap (EE gap) between real-world and clinical trial, stratified by PD-L1 stratum. RESULTS: The nonsquamous cohort (n = 486) consisted of 269 patients with PD-L1 < 1%, 158 with PD-L1 1% to 49%, and 59 with PD-L1 ≥ 50%. The squamous cohort (n = 117) consisted of 70 patients with PD-L1 < 1% and 47 with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. For OS, an EE gap was observed in nonsquamous patients with PD-L1 < 1% (HR 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.78; median OS 10 vs. 17.2 months) and HRs consistently >1 in all other nonsquamous and squamous PD-L1 strata, although not statistically significant. No EE-gap for PFS was observed in any stratum. CONCLUSION: No significant EE gap was found for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, except in the stratum nonsquamous mNSCLC with <1% PD-L1 tumor expression. In these patients, the survival in real-world was considerably shorter compared to the clinical trial results. Further studies are needed to determine which patient, treatment and or context factors contribute to this disparity.

Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results.

Aim: We investigated the effectiveness of durvalumab post-concurrent CRT (cCRT) and post-sequential CRT (sCRT) versus cCRT and sCRT alone and compared these outcomes with the PACIFIC trial. Methods: Four cohorts of stage III NSCLC patients who received CRT were included: cCRT with and without durvalumab, sCRT with and without durvalumab. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox regression. Results: Durvalumab improved PFS (cCRT: aHR = 0.69, sCRT: aHR = 0.71) and OS (cCRT: aHR = 0.71, sCRT: aHR = 0.32), although not all results were significant. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the trial, while OS did not differ. Conclusion: Durvalumab after CRT improved the survival outcomes. The difference between PFS in our study and the trial may be due to differences in follow-up methods.

We assessed a medicine called durvalumab on patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received chemoradiotherapy in a real-world setting. We compared their outcomes with those from a clinical trial. Patients who received two types of chemoradiotherapy with or without durvalumab were included, and their progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were analyzed. We found that patients treated with durvalumab had better PFS and OS than those treated without durvalumab. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the clinical trial, but OS was similar. The difference in PFS may be due to differences in measuring PFS.

Pharmacogenomic insights into treatment and management of statin-induced myopathy.

Although statins are generally well tolerated, the most common adverse drug reaction from statin therapy is myopathy. This article reviews the current pharmacogenomic knowledge of statin-induced myopathy. Furthermore, we will discuss the importance of recent pharmacogenetic advances for the treatment and management of statin-induced myopathy. Variation in the SLCO1B1 gene is associated with increased incidence of statin-induced myopathy, particularly with simvastatin and less so with other statins. If different pharmacokinetic enzymes and transporters are responsible for susceptibility to myopathy, this may explain differences in the occurrence of statin-induced myopathy in individual patients. Genotyping in patients suffering from statin-induced myopathy may help to personalize the choice of statin for the lowest chance of developing myopathy.