No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVE"Clinical inertia" has been used to describe the delay in the intensification of type 2 diabetes treatment among patients with poor glycemic control. Previous studies may have exaggerated the prevalence of clinical inertia by failing to adequately monitor drug dose changes and nonmedication interventions. This project evaluated the intensification of diabetes therapy and hemoglobin A 1c (A1C) goal attainment among patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when metformin monotherapy failed. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThe electronic health record at Cleveland Clinic was used to identify patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes between 2005 and 2013 who failed to reach the A1C goal after 3 months of metformin monotherapy. A time-dependent survival analysis was used to compare the time until A1C goal attainment in patients who received early intensification of therapy (within 6 months of metformin failure) or late intensification. The analysis was performed for A1C goals of 7% (n = 1,168), 7.5% (n = 679), and 8% (n = 429). RESULTSTreatment was intensified early in 62%, 69%, and 72% of patients when poor glycemic control was defined as an A1C >7%, >7.5%, and >8%, respectively. The probability of undergoing an early intensification was greater the higher the A1C category. Time until A1C goal attainment was shorter among patients who received early intensification regardless of the A1C goal (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONSA substantial number of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes fail to undergo intensification of therapy within 6 months of metformin monotherapy failure. Early intervention in patients when metformin monotherapy failed resulted in more rapid attainment of A1C goals.

Aim: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score ≥1% from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed using efficacy and safety data from the KEYNOTE-042 trial and projected over 20 years. Costs accounted for treatment, toxicity and disease management. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratios were reported. Results: Pembrolizumab resulted in an expected gain of 0.60 life years and 0.49 QALYs compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was US$130,155/QALY. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab is projected to be cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥1%.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a firstline checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

From the perspective of the National Health Service, prescribing ezetimibe to high cardiovascular risk patients being treated with atorvastatin vs switching them to rosuvastatin is projected to be a cost-effective use of resources in Portugal.

No abstract

No abstract