BackgroundMerkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive, cutaneous neuroendocrine neoplasm with annual incidence rates of 0.13–1.6 cases/100,000/year worldwide as of 2018. Chemotherapy for metastatic MCC (mMCC) has high objective response rates (ORRs), but responses are not durable and overall survival (OS) is poor. Avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) has demonstrated meaningful survival benefit and durable responses in clinical trials for mMCC. This study investigated real-world clinical outcomes in avelumab-treated patients with advanced (stage IIIB/IV) MCC in US academic medical centers.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with advanced MCC who initiated avelumab between March 1, 2017, and July 31, 2019, at six US academic centers. Data were requested for eligible patients from index date through December 31, 2020. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess demographic and clinical characteristics, real-world ORR (rwORR), real-world duration of response, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and OS.ResultsNinety patients with advanced MCC (82%, stage IV; 18%, stage IIIB) received avelumab. Median follow-up was 20.8 months (95% CI: 19.1 to 24.2). Median age was 68 years (range, 48–83), and the majority of patients were men (58%) and white (93%). The primary tumor was most commonly located on the lower limb (38%), with metastases mostly located in lymph nodes (68%), lung (52%), and viscera (52%). Approximately 42% and 26% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 and 3, respectively. Seventy-three patients (81%) received avelumab as first-line treatment of advanced MCC, while 17 (19%) received avelumab as second-line or later treatment. The median duration of avelumab treatment was 13.5 months (95% CI: 6.4 to 30.6), with 42% of patients still receiving avelumab by the end of follow-up. Patients with avelumab treatment had an rwORR of 73% (95% CI: 64 to 83), median rwPFS of 24.4 months (95% CI: 8.31 to not estimable (NE)), and median OS of 30.7 months (95% CI: 11.2 to NE).ConclusionsThis real-world study of patients with advanced MCC demonstrated that avelumab treatment resulted in a high response rate with durable responses and prolonged survival. The study findings validate the results demonstrated in prospective clinical trials and other observational studies.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background Adherence to antipsychotic medication is critical for bipolar disorder (BPD), major depression (MDD) and schizophrenia (SCZ) patients. Digital tools have emerged to monitor medication adherence along with tracking general health. Evidence on physician or patient preferences for such tools exists but is limited among caregivers. The study objective was to assess preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for medication adherence monitoring tools among caregivers of SMI patients. Methods A web-based survey was administered to caregivers of adult SMI patients. Twelve discrete choice questions comparing adherence monitoring tools that varied across two attribute bundles: (1) tool attributes including source of medication adherence information, frequency of information updates, access to adherence information, and physical activity, mood, and rest tracking, and (2) caregiver monthly out-of-pocket cost attribute were administered to caregiver respondents. Attributes were parameterized for both digital and non-digital tools. Random utility models were used to estimate caregivers’ preferences and WTP. Results Among 184 study-eligible caregivers, 57, 61 and 66 participants cared for BPD, MDD, and SCZ patients, respectively. Caregivers highly preferred (odds ratio (OR): 7.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.00–10.79) a tool that tracked medication ingestion using a pill embedded with an ingestible event market (IEM) sensor and tracked patients’ physical activity, mood, and rest than a non-digital pill organizer. Additionally, caregivers were willing to pay $255 per month (95% CI: $123–$387) more for this tool compared to a pill organizer. Conclusion Caregivers of SMI patients highly preferred and were willing to pay more for digital tools that not only measures medication ingestion but also tracks general health.

Twenty-five patients (average age, 65 +/- 4.5 years) with spontaneous putaminal hemorrhage were studied to determine any independent predictors as to survival and level of disability. Based on the computed tomography (CT) findings, they were grouped according to their location and extent of the hemorrhage. The thalamus and the caudate were not involved. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were done to determine any potential prognostic indicator. The groups were significantly different with regard to volume, intraventricular hemorrhage, midline shift, ambient cisterns, hydrocephalus, and disability score but not different with respect to pineal shift, side, gender, and age. The variables that arose as significant predictors of disability were intraventricular hemorrhage, midline shift, hydrocephalus, ambient cistems (all p < or = 0.001), pineal shift and age (both p < or = 0.04). Neither gender nor side was a significant predictor for disability score (p = 0.92 and p = 0.125, respectively). Multivariate regression model included volume, ambient cisterns, and age as significant predictors for disability score.

Background. Traditional approaches to capturing health-related productivity loss (e.g., the human capital method) focus only on the foregone wages of affected patients, overlooking the losses caregivers can incur. This study estimated the burden of productivity loss among breast cancer (BC) and non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and individuals caring for such patients using an augmented multiplier method. Design. A cross-sectional survey of BC and NSCLC patients and caregivers measured loss associated with time absent from work (absenteeism) and reduced effectiveness (presenteeism). Respondents reported pre- and postcancer diagnosis income, hours worked, and time to complete tasks. Exploratory multivariable analyses examined correlations between respondents’ clinical/demographic characteristics—including industry of employment—and postdiagnosis productivity. Results. Of 204 patients (104 BC, 100 NSCLC) and 200 caregivers (100 BC, 100 NSCLC) who completed the survey, 319 participants (162 BC, 157 NSCLC) working ≥40 wk/y prediagnosis were included in the analysis. More than one-third of the NSCLC (33%) and BC (43%) patients left the workforce postdiagnosis, whereas only 15% of caregivers did. The traditional estimate for the burden of productivity loss was 66% lower on average than the augmented estimate (NSCLC patients: 60%, BC patients: 69%, NSCLC caregivers: 59%, and BC caregivers: 73%). Conclusions. Although patients typically experience greater absenteeism, productivity loss incurred by caregivers is also substantial. Failure to account for such impacts can result in substantial underestimation of productivity gains novel cancer treatments may confer by enabling patients and caregivers to remain in the workforce longer. Our results underscore the importance of holistic approaches to understanding this impact on both patients and their caregivers and accounting for such considerations when making decisions about treatment and treatment value. Highlights Cancer can have a profound impact on productivity. This study demonstrates how the disease affects not only patients but also the informal or unpaid individuals who care for patients. An augmented approach to calculating health-related productivity loss suggests that productivity impacts are much larger than previously understood. A more comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of cancer for both patients and their caregivers suggests the need for more support in the workplace for these individuals and a holistic approach to accounting for these impacts in treatment decision making.