Is progression-free survival associated with a better health-related quality of life in patients with lung cancer? : Evidence from two randomised trials with afatinib

Acknowledgements Medical writing assistance, supported financially by Boehringer Ingelheim, was provided by Suzanne Patel during the preparation of this article. Funding This study was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Budget impact of sequential treatment with first-line afatinib versus first-line osimertinib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutations

Background The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed. Methods A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif(R)) versus first-line osimertinib (Tagrisso(R)), followed by subsequent treatments. A decision analysis model was constructed in Excel. Scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analysis were used to test the models' robustness. Results Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of euro108,166 per patient versus euro143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was euro110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus euro158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of euro48.15 million. Conclusions First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment

Health-related Quality of Life in the Phase III LUME-Colon 1 Study: Comparison and Interpretation of Results From EORTC QLQ-C30 Analyses

INTRODUCTION: We used European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) data from the LUME-Colon 1 study to illustrate different methods of statistical analysis for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and compared the results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nintedanib 200 mg twice daily plus best supportive care (n = 386) or matched placebo plus best supportive care (n = 382). Five methods (mean treatment difference averaged over time, using a mixed-effects growth curve model; mixed-effects models for repeated measurements (MMRM); time-to-deterioration (TTD); status change; and responder analysis) were used to analyze EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and scores from functional scales. RESULTS: Overall, GHS/QoL and physical functioning deteriorated over time. Mean treatment difference slightly favored nintedanib over placebo for physical functioning (adjusted mean, 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-4.34) and social functioning (adjusted mean, 2.62; 95% CI, 0.66-4.47). GHS/QoL was numerically better with nintedanib versus placebo (adjusted mean, 1.61; 95% CI, -0.004 to 3.27). MMRM analysis had similar results, with better physical functioning in the nintedanib group at all timepoints. There was no significant delay in GHS/QoL deterioration (10%) and physical functioning (16%) with nintedanib versus placebo (TTD analysis). Status change analysis showed a higher proportion of patients with markedly improved GHS/QoL and physical functioning in the nintedanib versus placebo groups. Responder analysis showed a similar, less pronounced pattern. CONCLUSION: Analyses of EORTC QLQ-C30 data showed that HRQoL was not impaired by treatment with nintedanib versus placebo. Analysis and interpretation of HRQoL endpoints should consider symptom type and severity and course of disease. ispartof: CLINICAL COLORECTAL CANCER vol:18 issue:4 pages:269-+ ispartof: location:United States status: publishe

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the LUME-Lung 1 trial: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of second-line nintedanib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

n/

Methodological issues in the economic evaluation of screening programmes for neonates

Decision-analytic models are increasingly used to inform health policy decisions on adoption and specification of large-scale screening programmes, and to establish the rationale for further scientific inquiries into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies. While recent years have witnessed considerable methodological advancement in analytical techniques for handling uncertainty in decision-analytic models, the measurement and valuation of health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) remains an area of contention, particularly in specific populations such as children. This thesis aims to advance both areas in the context of modelled evaluations of newborn screening programmes.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Quality of life and congenital heart defects: comparing parent and professional values

Objective: To compare preferences obtained from health professionals with those from parents for the longer-term health outcomes of children with congenital heart defects.Setting: Cardiology conference; hospital.Participants: 109 paediatric cardiology professionals (72% female, median age 38 years) and 106 parents of children with congenital heart defects (82% female, median age 37 years).Interventions: Eight health state descriptions, for cardiac and neurological disability resulting from congenital heart defects, were developed and presented with a self-administered anonymous questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rank health state descriptions from best to worst, score each health state using a visual analog scale and mark death on this scale.Results: Health professionals and parents agreed in the order of ranking health states from best to worst. Both groups assigned the lowest scores to health states with severe neurological disability. Scores did not differ significantly by age, sex or whether the respondent was in the health professional or parent group. Of all respondents, 8% ( 17) scored at least one health state description worse than death.Conclusions: Parents and health professionals place similar values on the quality of life outcomes of children with congenital heart defects. Both are more averse to health states describing worse neurological than cardiac disability. Improving our understanding of the relative importance of different outcomes to children and families is an important basis for sharing decisions about clinical care. The views of young people with congenital heart defects should be an important focus for future enquiry into health outcomes