Myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET) are myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) associated with high disease burden, reduced quality of life (QOL), and shortened survival. To assess how MPNs affect patients, we conducted a global MPN Landmark survey. This online survey of patients with MPNs and physicians was conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The survey measured MPN-related symptoms and the impact of MPNs on QOL and the ability to work as well as disease-management strategies. Overall, 219 physicians and 699 patients (MF, n = 174; PV, n = 223; ET, n = 302) completed the survey; 90% of patients experienced MPN-related symptoms. The most frequent and severe symptom was fatigue. Most patients experienced a reduction in QOL, including those with low symptom burden or low-risk scores. A substantial proportion of patients reported impairment at work and in overall activity. Interestingly, physician feedback and blood counts were the most important indicators of treatment success among patients, with improvements in symptoms and QOL being less important. Regarding disease management, our study revealed a lack of alignment between physician and patient perceptions relating to communication and disease management, with patients often having different treatment goals than physicians. Overall, our study suggested that therapies that reduce symptom burden and improve QOL in patients with MPNs are crucial in minimizing disease impact on patient daily lives. Additionally, our findings showed a need for improved patient-physician communication, standardized monitoring of symptoms, and agreement on treatment goals.

No abstract

PURPOSE The selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib was approved in Argentina in 2015 for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) based on phase III study results. The Ibrance Real World Insights (IRIS) study aims to evaluate palbociclib in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC or MBC in the real-world setting in multiple countries globally. Here we report results from patients enrolled in the IRIS study in Argentina. PATIENTS AND METHODS This retrospective medical chart review study included postmenopausal women with confirmed HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC or MBC who were treated with palbociclib plus letrozole as first-line endocrine-based therapy or with palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with disease progression after endocrine therapy. Participating physicians reviewed medical records of up to six patients each, collecting demographic and clinical data. Outcomes included progression-free and overall survival rates. RESULTS Records were extracted for 162 patients in Argentina (palbociclib plus letrozole, n = 105 [65%]; palbociclib plus fulvestrant, n = 57 [35%]). The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 94% for patients treated with palbociclib plus letrozole and 95% for patients treated with palbociclib plus fulvestrant; 85% and 80% of patients treated with palbociclib plus letrozole were progression free at 12 and 18 months, respectively. Six-month survival rates were 98% for palbociclib plus letrozole and 98% for palbociclib plus fulvestrant; 93% and 89% of patients treated with palbociclib plus letrozole were alive at 12 and 18 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Results from this first real-world evaluation of clinical outcomes in Argentina suggest that palbociclib plus letrozole or fulvestrant delivers favorable effectiveness, as measured by progression-free and overall survival rates.

ObjectivesWe examined rheumatologists’ motivation for prescribing biosimilars, assessed their treatment preferences in relation to prescribing behavior and explored patient attitudes to biosimilars.MethodsData were taken from the Adelphi Real World Biosimilars Programme, a real-world, cross-sectional study undertaken with German rheumatologists and patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis in 2015–2016. Rheumatologists provided data on their prescribing behavior and attitudes toward biosimilars and invited the next eight eligible consecutive consulting patients to complete a questionnaire. Rheumatologists were split into “investigative”, “conservative” and “other” groups.ResultsOverall, 50 rheumatologists and 261 patients participated. Biosimilars accounted for <10% of all biologic therapy prescriptions, and >95% of rheumatologists would prescribe a biooriginator rather than biosimilar as the first- or second-line therapy if unrestricted. Patients showed some reluctance to accept biosimilars, and a small proportion of patients were unhappy when switched from a biooriginator to a biosimilar. Satisfaction with treatment was highest in patients who started treatment with a biooriginator prior to biosimilar availability. Patient concerns when starting treatment with a biooriginator or a biosimilar included not knowing enough about the drug (25%–41%), potential side effects (26%–32%) and potential long-term problems (19%–30%).ConclusionStudy results demonstrate that there is some reluctance from patients to accept biosimilars and the need to educate patients who are unsure to allow them to be involved in decision making, highlighting the importance of patient and physician communication. There remains a need for further research into nonclinical switching and the long-term impact of prescribing biosimilars.

Aims: To investigate treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) using real-world German health insurance claims data. Materials and methods: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted from a German statutory health insurance database for adult patients with UC indexed on biologic therapy initiation (2013-2015). Anonymized data were evaluated for 12 months prior to (baseline) through 24 months after (follow-up) indexing. Biologic dose escalations, steroid and immunosuppressant use, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs were evaluated, with significant differences assessed across and between index biologics. Descriptive statistics, chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, and analysis of variance were performed. Results: The analysis included 304 patients (adalimumab, n ¼ 125; golimumab, n ¼ 47; infliximab, n ¼ 114; vedolizumab, n ¼ 18). Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar across biologics. Dose escalations occurred in 58% of patients (73% of patients receiving adalimumab), with 41% receiving subsequent de-escalation. Steroids were used during follow-up by 74% of patients; 25% received steroids >14 weeks after indexing. Overall, 41% of patients received an immunosuppressant during follow-up. Steroid and immunosuppressant use were similar across biologics. Total direct healthcare costs were higher during follow-up than baseline and differed significantly across treatments (p < .05), with highest costs for golimumab. Biologic costs contributed to a major portion of follow-up costs. HCRU and costs for most resources were higher in the first 12-month follow-up period than baseline. All resource use except gastroenterology visits returned to, or below, baseline levels 13-24 months post-index date. Limitations: There was potential for inappropriate inclusion/exclusion due to miscoding. Patients may have received biologics >12 months prior to the index date. Biologic originators and biosimilars could not be differentiated. Conclusions: These data suggest that control with current biologics is suboptimal. Further treatment options that provide sustained steroid-free remission for this patient population without the need for dose escalations or concomitant therapies may be warranted.