Evolocumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in short-term studies. We ...conducted two extension studies to obtain longer-term data.
In two open-label, randomized trials, we enrolled 4465 patients who had completed 1 of 12 phase 2 or 3 studies ("parent trials") of evolocumab. Regardless of study-group assignments in the parent trials, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either evolocumab (140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) plus standard therapy or standard therapy alone. Patients were followed for a median of 11.1 months with assessment of lipid levels, safety, and (as a prespecified exploratory analysis) adjudicated cardiovascular events including death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart failure. Data from the two trials were combined.
As compared with standard therapy alone, evolocumab reduced the level of LDL cholesterol by 61%, from a median of 120 mg per deciliter to 48 mg per deciliter (P<0.001). Most adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups, although neurocognitive events were reported more frequently in the evolocumab group. The risk of adverse events, including neurocognitive events, did not vary significantly according to the achieved level of LDL cholesterol. The rate of cardiovascular events at 1 year was reduced from 2.18% in the standard-therapy group to 0.95% in the evolocumab group (hazard ratio in the evolocumab group, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.78; P=0.003).
During approximately 1 year of therapy, the use of evolocumab plus standard therapy, as compared with standard therapy alone, significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels and reduced the incidence of cardiovascular events in a prespecified but exploratory analysis. (Funded by Amgen; OSLER-1 and OSLER-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01439880 and NCT01854918.).
A central factor in the pathogenesis of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is the initial decrease in systolic function. Prior attempts at increasing cardiac contractility with oral ...drugs have uniformly resulted in signals of increased mortality at pharmacologically effective doses. Omecamtiv mecarbil is a novel, selective cardiac myosin activator that has been shown to improve cardiac function and to decrease ventricular volumes, heart rate, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with chronic HF. The GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure) trial tests the hypotheses that omecamtiv mecarbil can safely improve symptoms, prevent clinical HF events, and delay CV death in patients with chronic HF. The GALACTIC-HF trial is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven cardiovascular outcomes trial. More than 8,000 patients with chronic symptomatic (New York Heart Association functional class II to IV) HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides, and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization or emergency department visit for HF within a year of screening will be randomized to either oral placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil employing a pharmacokinetic-guided dose titration strategy using doses of 25, 37.5, or 50 mg twice daily. The primary efficacy outcome is the time to cardiovascular death or first HF event. The study has 90% power to assess a final hazard ratio of approximately 0.80 in cardiovascular death, the first secondary outcome. The GALACTIC-HF trial is the first trial examining whether selectively increasing cardiac contractility in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction will result in improved clinical outcomes. (Registrational Study With Omecamtiv Mecarbil/AMG 423 to Treat Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction GALACTIC-HF; NCT02929329).
In phase 2 studies, evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, reduced LDL-C levels in patients receiving statin therapy.
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of evolocumab when ...used in combination with a moderate- vs high-intensity statin.
Phase 3, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and ezetimibe-controlled study conducted between January and December of 2013 in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia at 198 sites in 17 countries.
Patients (n = 2067) were randomized to 1 of 24 treatment groups in 2 steps. Patients were initially randomized to a daily, moderate-intensity (atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, or rosuvastatin 5 mg) or high-intensity (atorvastatin 80 mg, rosuvastatin 40 mg) statin. After a 4-week lipid-stabilization period, patients (n = 1899) were randomized to compare evolocumab (140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) with placebo (every 2 weeks or monthly) or ezetimibe (10 mg or placebo daily; atorvastatin patients only) when added to statin therapies.
Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 and at week 12.
Evolocumab reduced LDL-C levels by 66% (95% CI, 58% to 73%) to 75% (95% CI, 65% to 84%) (every 2 weeks) and by 63% (95% CI, 54% to 71%) to 75% (95% CI, 67% to 83%) (monthly) vs placebo at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in the moderate- and high-intensity statin-treated groups; the LDL-C reductions at week 12 were comparable. For moderate-intensity statin groups, evolocumab every 2 weeks reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 115 to 124 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 39 to 49 mg/dL; monthly evolocumab reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 123 to 126 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 43 to 48 mg/dL. For high-intensity statin groups, evolocumab every 2 weeks reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 89 to 94 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 35 to 38 mg/dL; monthly evolocumab reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 89 to 94 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 33 to 35 mg/dL. Adverse events were reported in 36%, 40%, and 39% of evolocumab-, ezetimibe-, and placebo-treated patients, respectively. The most common adverse events in evolocumab-treated patients were back pain, arthralgia, headache, muscle spasms, and pain in extremity (all <2%).
In this 12-week trial conducted among patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia, evolocumab added to moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy resulted in additional LDL-C lowering. Further studies are needed to evaluate the longer-term clinical outcomes and safety of this approach for LDL-C lowering.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01763866.
Many treatments and drugs are intended to reduce the occurrence of negative events of interest, control the severity of the events, accelerate recovery from the events, or a combination of these ...effects. While assessing the clinical effect is typically the primary objective of a trial, testing the treatment effect on the health status of patients based on patient reported outcome (PRO) can be a useful component in determining the value of a treatment. Analysis of PROs in this setting, however, face the following challenges: the PRO value immediately after the event occurrence is often not captured, and the effect of the event on health status measured by the PRO is transient as subjects recover over time. Therefore, traditional statistical methods used to assess treatment effects suffer from low power for PROs. In this manuscript, we apply a kernel smoothing technique to estimate before‐ and after‐event PRO values. We also propose new test outcomes based on observed and estimated PRO values and evaluate tests that focus on the tail distributions. We demonstrate that the tail distribution tests using the new outcomes can achieve high power under certain conditions.
Aims
The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is being tested in the Global ...Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials.
Methods and results
Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥II, ejection fraction ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for heart failure or history of hospitalization/emergency department visit for heart failure within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5, or 50 mg bid). A total of 8256 patients male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years were enrolled with a mean ejection fraction 27%, ischaemic aetiology in 54%, NYHA class II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide 1971 pg/mL. Heart failure therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary heart failure trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent heart failure registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril/valsartan at baseline (n = 1594).
Conclusions
GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation.
Graphical representation of the GALACTIC‐HF trial design, enrolment and baseline characteristics. ACEi, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ARNi, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy (biventricular pacemaker); CV, cardiovascular; EF, ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; NT‐proBNP, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide; NYHA, Hew York Heart Association; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Replication procedures have proven useful for variance estimation for large scale complex surveys. As an extension of bootstrap procedures to rejective samples, we define a bootstrap sample that is a ...rejective, unequal probability, replacement sample selected from the original sample. A modification of the bootstrap with improved performance is suggested for stratified samples with small stratum sizes. Simulations for Poisson and stratified rejective samples support the use of replicates in estimating the variance of the regression estimator for rejective samples.
The objective of this study was to provide up-to-date estimates of the clinical and economic burden that occurs during inpatient treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia (FN).
A ...retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2007-2010 hospital discharge data from the Premier database. The study population included adult patients with discharge diagnoses of neutropenia (ICD-9 code 288.0x) with fever or infection and receipt of intravenous antibiotics and female breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or Hodgkin lymphoma. Primary study outcomes were inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospitalization cost for each patient's first FN-related hospitalization. Logistic regressions (for mortality) and multivariate linear regressions (for LOS and cost) were conducted to assess the effect of comorbidities and infection types on study outcomes, adjusting for other patient and hospital characteristics.
Among 16,273 cancer patients hospitalized with FN, the inpatient case fatality rate was 10.6%, mean LOS was 8.6 days, and mean total hospitalization cost was $18,880. Lung cancer patients had the highest inpatient case fatality rate (15.7%), and NHL patients had the longest LOS (10.1 days) and the highest cost ($24,218). Multivariate analyses showed that most comorbidities were associated with a greater risk of mortality, longer LOS, and higher cost. Septicemia/bacteremia and pneumonia were associated with a greater risk of mortality, and most types of infection were associated with a longer LOS and higher cost.
The total burden of FN may be under-estimated in this study because outpatient treatment and any patient deaths or costs that occurred outside of Premier hospitals could not be captured.
FN-related hospitalizations among cancer patients are costly and accompanied by considerable mortality risk. Substantial differences in the clinical and economic burden of FN exist depending on cancer types, comorbidities, and infection types.
Healthcare claims databases have been used in several studies to characterize the risk and burden of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors ...against FN. The accuracy of methods previously used to identify FN in such databases has not been formally evaluated.
Data comprised linked electronic medical records from Geisinger Health System and healthcare claims data from Geisinger Health Plan. Subjects were classified into subgroups based on whether or not they were hospitalized for FN per the presumptive "gold standard" (ANC <1.0×10(9)/L, and body temperature ≥38.3°C or receipt of antibiotics) and claims-based definition (diagnosis codes for neutropenia, fever, and/or infection). Accuracy was evaluated principally based on positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity.
Among 357 study subjects, 82 (23%) met the gold standard for hospitalized FN. For the claims-based definition including diagnosis codes for neutropenia plus fever in any position (n=28), PPV was 100% and sensitivity was 34% (95% CI: 24-45). For the definition including neutropenia in the primary position (n=54), PPV was 87% (78-95) and sensitivity was 57% (46-68). For the definition including neutropenia in any position (n=71), PPV was 77% (68-87) and sensitivity was 67% (56-77).
Patients hospitalized for chemotherapy-induced FN can be identified in healthcare claims databases--with an acceptable level of mis-classification--using diagnosis codes for neutropenia, or neutropenia plus fever.
Abstract Objectives Rising out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients have increased shared decision making. Clinical guidelines recommend prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for ...patients receiving chemotherapy with a 20% or greater risk of febrile neutropenia. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to explore breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for prophylactic G-CSF to decrease the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Methods An online discrete choice experiment questionnaire survey of a national US convenience sample of self-reported breast cancer patients with prior chemotherapy treatment was conducted. Sixteen paired G-CSF treatment scenarios, each with four attributes (risk of disruption to chemotherapy schedule due to low white blood cell counts, risk of developing an infection requiring hospitalization, frequency of administration, and total out-of-pocket cost) were presented with a follow-up “no treatment” option. Participant preferences and WTP out of pocket were estimated by logistic regression. Results Participants (n = 296) preferred G-CSF regimens with lower out-of-pocket costs, lower risk of chemotherapy disruption, lower risk of infection, and greater convenience (one G-CSF injection per chemotherapy cycle). Participants’ WTP was $1076 out of pocket per cycle to reduce the risk (high to low) of disrupting their chemotherapy schedule, $884 per cycle to reduce the risk (24% high to 7% low) of infection, and $851 per cycle to decrease the number of G-CSF injections (11 to 1) per cycle. Conclusions Participants highly valued specific features of prophylactic G-CSF treatment including maintaining their chemotherapy schedule, lowering their risk of infection, and reducing the number of injections. Physicians should consider patient preferences to inform the best treatment choices for individual patients.
PDF
