Explore the vast range of titles available.

Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1–2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509. Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7–28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7–25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9–18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9–17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72–1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related. First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks. Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

ABSTRACT Objective: An understanding of the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may assist healthcare providers (HCP) when making treatment decisions. We investigated the incidence of CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC), in comparison with predictions of CINV by HCP. Research design and methods: This prospective study was conducted at nine oncology centers in Mexico. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old and scheduled to receive a single, initial cycle of chemotherapy. Patients recorded nausea severity, episodes of emesis, and rescue medication use for the first 5 days after chemotherapy. HCP predicted the general incidence of acute (day 1) and delayed days 2–5) CINV. Results: A total of 82 patients were enrolled, with complete data available for 73. Mean age was 50 years; 67 (92%) were women; and 57 (78%) received HEC, while 16 (22%) received MEC. HCP predictions were comparable to the incidence of acute CINV after HEC and MEC and of delayed CINV after MEC. However, HCP predictions underestimated delayed CINV after HEC. 75.4% of patients (95% CI: 62.2–85.9) reported delayed nausea and HCP predicted 41.7% (95% CI: 30.2–55.0); 63.2% of patients (95% CI: 49.3–75.6) reported delayed emesis and HCP predicted 31.8% (95% CI: 21.0–44.5). Limitations of the study include the small sample size, possible selection bias and lack of a standardized antiemetic regimen. Conclusions: Healthcare providers underestimated the incidence of delayed CINV after HEC. There is a need for a better understanding of the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis, which remain common side-effects of chemotherapy.

Of the 382 million people worldwide with diabetes, and if current trends continue, nearly half a billion people worldwide will have diabetes by 2035. Two-thirds of current diabetics are living in urban centers and the urban concentration of individuals with diabetes is on the rise. The problem is that in the absence of widespread clinical testing, there is no reliable way to predict which segments of the population are the most vulnerable to the onset of diabetes. Knowing who the most vulnerable are, and where they live, can guide the efficient allocation of prevention resources. Toward this end, we introduce the concept of composite vulnerability, which includes both group and individual-level attributes, and we provide a demonstration of its application to a large urban setting. The components of composite vulnerability are estimated using a novel, population-based, procedure that relies on sample survey data and nonparametric statistical techniques. First, cluster analysis identified three multivariate profiles of adult residents with type 2 diabetes, based on 35 socioeconomic indicators. Second, the undiagnosed population was screened for vulnerability based on their resemblance or fit to these multivariate profiles. Geographic neighborhoods with high concentrations of “vulnerables” could then be identified. In parallel, recursive partitioning found the best predictors of type 2 diabetes in this urban population, combined them with indicators of disadvantage, and applied them to residents in the selected neighborhoods to establish relative levels of composite vulnerability. Neighborhoods with high concentrations of residents manifesting composite vulnerability can be easily identified for targeting community-based prevention measures.

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), common adverse events of chemotherapy, may be associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization. This study was conducted to describe CINV-associated healthcare visits and costs following a first cycle of highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Methods This retrospective cohort study used the Premier Perspective™ Database to identify adult patients who received their first HEC or MEC and at least one antiemetic agent from 2003 to 2007 at US hospital-based outpatient facilities. Hospital visits with a CINV-related ICD-9 diagnosis were included from the chemotherapy administration date to 30 days later or 1 day before the second chemotherapy, whichever was first. CINV costs were hospital-reported costs. Results Of 19,139 patients (HEC, 16%; MEC, 84%), mean (SD) age was 59 (14) years; 59% were female; 66% were white. CINV prophylaxis included 5-HT 3 antagonists (85%), dexamethasone (76%), and NK-1 antagonists (2%). Overall, 13.8% of patients had a CINV-associated visit (HEC, 18%; MEC, 13%): 0.2% for acute CINV (day of chemotherapy, excluding chemotherapy administration visit) and 13.7% for delayed CINV. CINV-associated visits included inpatient (IP, 64%), outpatient (OP, 26%), and emergency room (ER, 10%) visits. Mean (SD) costs of CINV visits were $5,299 ($6,639); for IP, $7,448 ($7,271); OP, $1,494 ($2,172); and ER, $918 ($1,071). Mean per-patient CINV-associated costs across all patients were $731 ($3,069). Sensitivity analysis excluding visits where CINV was a secondary diagnosis code resulted in a CINV incidence of 4.4%, a mean CINV visit cost of $4,043, and a mean per-patient CINV-associated cost across all patients of $176. Conclusions CINV visits in the first HEC or MEC cycle were common and costly, especially inpatient hospitalizations in the delayed phase. Strategies to reduce CINV in the delayed phase could reduce healthcare utilization and costs.

ObjectiveTo assess primary care physicians’ (PCPs) knowledge of type 2 diabetes screening guidelines (American Diabetes Association (ADA) and 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)), the alignment between their self-reported adherence and actual practice, and how often PCPs recommended diabetes prevention and self-management education programs (DPP/DSME).Research design and methodsAn online survey of PCPs to understand knowledge and adherence toward use of USPSTF/ADA guidelines and recommendation of DPP/DSME. Patient data from electronic medical records (EMRs) for each PCP were used to identify rates of screening in eligible patients as per guidelines and the two sources were compared to assess concordance.ResultsOf 305 surveyed physicians, 38% reported use of both guidelines (33% use ADA only, 25% USPSTF only). Approximately one-third of physicians who reported use of USPSTF/ADA guidelines had non-concordant EMR data. Similarly, while most PCPs reported they are ‘very likely’ to screen patients with risk factors listed in guidelines, for each criterion at least one-fourth (24%) of PCPs survey responses were non-concordant with EMRs. PCPs reported they provide referral to DPP and DSME on average to 45% and 67% of their newly diagnosed patients with pre-diabetes and diabetes, respectively.ConclusionFindings show disconnect between PCPs’ perceptions of adherence to screening guidelines and actual practice, and highlight limited referrals to DPP/DSME programs. More research is needed to understand barriers to guideline consistent screening and uptake of DPP/DSME, particularly in light of recent policy changes such as the linking USPSTF criteria to reimbursement and expected Medicare DPP reimbursement in 2018.

Treatment of growth hormone disorders typically involves daily injections of human growth hormone (GH) over many years, incurring substantial costs. We assessed the extent of undesired GH loss due to leakage in the course of pen preparation prior to injection, and differences between the prescribed dose, based on patient weight, and the actual delivered dose based on pen dosing increments in five GH administration devices. Norditropin® prefilled FlexPro®, NordiFlex®, NordiLet®, and durable NordiPen®/SimpleXx® 5 mg pens (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark) and durable Omnitrope® Pen-5 devices (Sandoz, Holzkirchen, Germany) were tested (n = 40 for each device type). Product wastage was measured in accordance with validated protocols in an ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 11608-1 and Good Manufacturing Practice compliant laboratory. The average mass of wasted GH from each device type was measured in simulations of dripping with the needle attached prior to injection and while setting a dose. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was confirmed by Student's t-test, and a model was constructed to estimate mean annual GH wastage per patient in cohorts of pediatric patients with GH disorders. Mean GH mass wasted with the needle on prior to injection was 0.0 μg with Norditropin pens, relative to 98 μg with Omnitrope Pen-5. During dose dialing, 0.0-2.3 μg of GH was lost with Norditropin pens versus 0.8 μg with Omnitrope Pen-5. All Norditropin and Omnitrope device comparisons were statistically significant. Modeling GH wastage in a US cohort showed 5.5 mg of annual GH wastage per patient with FlexPro versus 43.6 mg with Omnitrope, corresponding to 7-8 additional pens per patient annually. Overall, Norditropin pens resulted in significantly less wastage than the Omnitrope Pen-5. The study suggests that GH devices of the same nominal volume exhibit differences that may affect the frequency of GH prescription refills required to remain adherent to therapy.

Background: Since allergic rhinitis in asthma patients is associated with worse asthma control, the treatment of the comorbid condition may improve outcomes. Methods: A 1-year retrospective study using the UK Mediplus® database (2001–2004) included asthmatic patients aged 15–55 with allergic rhinitis. Patients starting therapy based on the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, defined as an increase in inhaled corticosteroids (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, hdICS), or the addition of montelukast (ICS+MON) or long-acting β-agonists (ICS+LABA) to ICS, were studied. Univariable and multiple logistic regressions evaluated asthma-related outcomes. Results: Among 2,596 asthma and allergic rhinitis patients, 83.2% initiated ICS+LABA, 12.1% hdICS and 4.7% ICS+MON. The mean age was 34 years and 60% were female. ICS+MON patients had more moderate-severe asthma (p = 0.04). Approximately 84% of the ICS+LABA patients experienced an asthma control failure compared to 50% in the other groups (p < 0.0001). The proportions of patients requiring treatment change were 73.8, 22 and 27.3% in the ICS+LABA, hdICS and ICS+MON groups, respectively (p = 0.001). Asthma-related resource use was similar among all groups. The ICS+MON group received fewer mean prescriptions for oral corticosteroids (p = 0.024) than the other groups (p = 0.026). Conclusions: In asthma and allergic rhinitis, treatment with ICS+MON or hdICS was associated with lower rates of asthma control failure and fewer treatment changes than the ICS+LABA group. MON users also required fewer oral corticosteroids.