Dataset Information

Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments: A systematic literature review (SLR).

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

SCLC makes up approximately 15% of all lung carcinomas and is characterized by relatively aggressive spread and poorer prognosis compared to other lung cancers. Treatment options are limited, and their efficacy in randomized trials is poor, whilst outcomes in clinical practice remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of SCLC treatments.

Methods

An SLR was conducted across nine databases accessed through OVID, capturing observational, non-randomized studies published between 01/2006-11/2018. In total, 554 abstracts were retrieved and systematically screened for eligibility. The eligible publications included effectiveness and tolerability data from adult SCLC patients (at any line of therapy). Additional grey literature searches were conducted.

Results

Forty-three publications were included in this review-data from first-line therapies were captured most often (n = 32), while data from second (n = 14) and third line (n = 7) and beyond (n = 7) were less frequent. The publications reported primarily on chemotherapy/radiotherapy. The majority of publications lacked robustness and only 14/43 conducted statistical analyses or controlled for bias. Median OS for the largest SCLC populations were 9.6 months at first line (n = 23,535) and 4.9 months at second line (n = 254) for treatment with chemotherapy, and 4.7 months at third line (n = 120) for predominantly platinum-based chemotherapy or cyclophosphamide/adriamycin/vincristine. Hematologic toxicities (such as neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia) were the most frequently reported TRAEs (n = 9).

Conclusions

Real-world treatment effectiveness and tolerability data were fragmented and inconsistently reported, and available publications were primarily of poor quality and lacked statistical analyses. This SLR showed limited treatment options and poor OS in SCLC, with no treatment option being clearly superior. TRAEs additionally increased the burden of this already challenging disease. Recent data suggest real-world outcomes are even poorer that those reported in clinical trials, and that novel therapies are needed to offer new treatment options for patients.

SUBMITTER: Povsic M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6638917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLittle data is available on patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC treated with erlotinib specifically after failure of first-line pemetrexed-containing chemotherapy. We assessed the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of erlotinib in a real-world setting.MethodsProspective single-arm, open-label, multicenter, non-interventional study of erlotinib (150mg daily) in inoperable stage III/IV NSCLC after progression on first-line pemetrexed-containing chemotherapy without EGFR-mutation selection. Patients were followed according to routine practice and response assessment was performed using RECIST 1.1. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included best confirmed overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS). Adverse events were recorded. An independent dataset was used to validate the results.ResultsIn all, 59 patients were screened, 57 enrolled, and 54 (36 men; median age 65 years) included in the per-protocol analysis. Median PFS was 1.8 (95% CI 1.4-2.6) months, with 11% (95% CI 5-21%) alive and progression-free at 6 months. The ORR was 0.0% (97.5% CI 0.0-6.8%) and the DCR 34.6% (95% CI 21.9-49.0%). Median overall survival was 5.8 (95% CI 3.3-8.6) months with 28% (95% CI 17-42%) alive at one year. Rash occurred in 60.7% (95% CI 46.7-73.5%), with severe rash in 12.5% (95% CI 5.1-24.1%). Any grade diarrhea was observed in 42.8% (95% CI 29.7-56.8%), with grade 3 occurring in 7.1% (95% CI 1.9-17.2%). Erlotinib was stopped in 21.0% (95% CI 11.3-33.9%) of patients due to adverse events, which were treatment related in 7%.ConclusionSecond-line erlotinib after pemetrexed treatment results in similar real-world outcomes as reported after non-pemetrexed containing first-line therapy. However, the overall duration of response in unselected patients remains limited and other effective treatments have in the meantime been introduced. No new safety signals were detected.

Project description:BackgroundRobust evidence from real-world studies is needed to aid decision-makers and other stakeholders in choosing the best treatment options for patients. The objective of this work was to assess real-world outcomes of treatment strategies for limited- and extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) prior to the global introduction of immunotherapies for this disease.MethodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase to identify articles published in English from October 1, 2015, through May 20, 2020. Searches were designed using a combination of Medical Subject Heading (Medline), Emtree (Embase subject headings), and free-text terms such as SCLC. Observational studies reporting data on outcomes of initial treatment strategies in patients with limited- and extensive-stage SCLC were included. Studies with limited sample sizes (<100 patients), enrolled all patients prior to 2010, or did not report outcomes for limited- and extensive-stage SCLC separately were excluded. Data were extracted into a predesigned template by a single researcher. All extractions were validated by a second researcher, with disagreements resolved via consensus.ResultsForty articles were included in this review. Most enrolled patients from the United States (n = 18 articles) or China (n = 12 articles). Most examined limited-stage (n = 27 articles) SCLC. All studies examined overall survival as the primary outcome. Articles investigating limited-stage SCLC reported outcomes for surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, and adjuvant prophylactic cranial irradiation. In studies examining multiple treatment strategies, chemoradiotherapy was the most commonly utilized therapy (56%-82%), with chemotherapy used in 18% to 44% of patients. Across studies, median overall survival was generally higher for chemoradiotherapy (15-45 months) compared with chemotherapy alone (6.0-15.6 months). Studies of extensive-stage SCLC primarily reported on chemotherapy alone, consolidative thoracic radiotherapy, and radiotherapy for patients presenting with brain metastases. Overall survival was generally lower for patients receiving chemotherapy alone (median: 6.4-16.5 months; 3 years, 5%-14.9%) compared with chemotherapy in combination with consolidative thoracic radiotherapy (median: 12.1-18.0 months; 3 years, 15.0%-18.1%). Studies examining whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases reported lower median overall survival (5.6-8.7 months) compared with stereotactic radiosurgery (10.0-14.5 months).ConclusionsUnder current standard of care, which has remained relatively unchanged over the past few decades, prognosis remains poor for patients with SCLC.

Project description:BackgroundSmall-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for 12-15% of lung cancers and is associated with poor survival outcomes and high symptom burden. This study employed a broad, systematic search strategy and timeframe to identify evidence on real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for SCLC outside the USA, including understanding sub-populations such as extensive-stage (ES) or limited-stage (LS) disease.MethodsDatabases (MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM reviews) were searched for journal articles published in the English language between 1 January 2000-1 March 2020 and supplemented by hand searching of conference abstracts and posters presented at conferences between 1 January 2016-1 March 2020 reporting real-world treatment outcomes in patients with SCLC. A targeted clinical guideline review was also completed.ResultsOne-hundred studies provided quantitative data; 57 were available as full-text articles, whilst the remaining 43 were presented as abstracts or posters. The majority (80 studies, 80%) of included studies reported treatment in the first-line setting, where platinum-based chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy was the most commonly used treatment strategy, in line with current treatment guidelines in SCLC. First-line treatments were found to have a high response rate; however, most patients relapsed early. No studies reported treatment or outcomes with immune-oncology therapies. Second-line treatment options were very limited, and primarily consisted of either re-treatment with first-line regimen or topotecan, but the prognosis for these patients remained poor. Outcomes were particularly poor amongst those with ES or relapsed disease vs. LS disease.ConclusionsSCLC treatment patterns and short survival outcomes have remained constant over the previous 20 years. Due to the search timeframe, none of the studies identified reported on the impact of recently approved immune-oncology therapies in SCLC. Further data is needed on the impact of immunotherapies on treatment patterns and real-world outcomes in SCLC.

Project description:It has remained unclear whether there are clinically meaningful differences between antipsychotic treatments with regard to preventing relapse of schizophrenia, owing to the impossibility of including large unselected patient populations in randomized clinical trials, as well as residual confounding from selection biases in observational studies.To study the comparative real-world effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments for patients with schizophrenia.Prospectively gathered nationwide databases were linked to study the risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure from July 1, 2006, to December 31, 2013, among all patients in Sweden with a schizophrenia diagnosis who were 16 to 64 years of age in 2006 (29?823 patients in the total prevalent cohort; 4603 in the incident cohort of newly diagnosed patients). Within-individual analyses were used for primary analyses, in which each individual was used as his or her own control to eliminate selection bias. Traditional Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression was used for secondary analyses.Risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure (defined as psychiatric rehospitalization, suicide attempt, discontinuation or switch to other medication, or death).There were 29?823 patients (12?822 women and 17?001 men; mean [SD] age, 44.9 [12.0] years). During follow-up, 13?042 of 29?823 patients (43.7%) were rehospitalized, and 20?225 of 28?189 patients (71.7%) experienced treatment failure. The risk of psychiatric rehospitalization was the lowest during monotherapy with once-monthly long-acting injectable paliperidone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.64), long-acting injectable zuclopenthixol (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57), clozapine (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.58), long-acting injectable perphenazine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65), and long-acting injectable olanzapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77) compared with no use of antipsychotic medication. Oral flupentixol (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14), quetiapine (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00), and oral perphenazine (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97) were associated with the highest risk of rehospitalization. Long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were associated with substantially lower risk of rehospitalization compared with equivalent oral formulations (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84 in the total cohort; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86 in the incident cohort). Clozapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) and all long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications (HRs 0.65-0.80) were associated with the lowest rates of treatment failure compared with the most widely used medication, oral olanzapine. The results of several sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analyses.Clozapine and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were the pharmacologic treatments with the highest rates of prevention of relapse in schizophrenia. The risk of rehospitalization is about 20% to 30% lower during long-acting injectable treatments compared with equivalent oral formulations.

Project description:AimTo investigate the real-world effectiveness of pharmacological treatments (buprenorphine, methadone) of opioid use disorder (OUD).DesignA nation-wide, register-based cohort study.SettingSweden.ParticipantsAll residents aged 16-64 years living in Sweden using OUD medication from July 2005 to December 2016 (n = 5757, 71.8% men) were identified from registers of prescriptions, inpatient and specialized outpatient care, causes of death, sickness absence and disability pensions.MeasurementsMain outcome: hospitalization due to OUD.Secondary outcomeshospitalization due to any cause; death due to all, natural and external causes. Mortality was analyzed with between-individual multivariate-adjusted Cox hazards regression model. Recurrent outcomes, such as hospitalizations, were analyzed with within-individual analyses to eliminate selection bias. OUD medication use versus non-use was modelled with PRE2DUP (from prescription drug purchases to drug use periods) method.FindingsBuprenorphine [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.97] and methadone (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.59-0.93) use were associated with significantly lower risk of OUD hospitalization, but not any-cause hospitalizations, compared with the time-periods when the same individual did not use OUD medication. The use of buprenorphine and methadone were both associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.34-0.59; HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.41-0.63, respectively), compared with non-use of both medications. Similar results were found for risk of mortality due to external causes (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.27-0.54; HR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.29-0.53, respectively), but not for mortality due to natural causes. The risk of OUD hospitalization and all-cause mortality was decreased in all duration categories of studied medications (< 30, 31-180, 181-365 and >365 days), except for methadone use less than 30 days.ConclusionsThe use of buprenorphine and methadone are both associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to opioid use disorder and death due to all and external causes, when compared with non-use.

Project description:IntroductionBelimumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody that binds to soluble B-lymphocyte stimulator and inhibits its biological activity. Since receiving approvals for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), several observational studies have investigated the effectiveness of belimumab in the real-world setting. This study reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of belimumab for the treatment of SLE.MethodsA literature search following PRISMA Guidelines and limited to studies in English was performed (2014-2020) to identify relevant studies reporting effectiveness outcomes of belimumab in patients with SLE. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Outcomes, including SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, prednisone-equivalent use, and SLE flare were pooled and analyzed using statistical aggregation methods.ResultsThe literature search identified 514 articles for initial review. Of these, 17 articles were suitable for data extraction and summary. Baseline characteristics of patients in real-world studies were generally similar to those of relevant clinical trials, including age, sex, disease duration, SLEDAI score, and prednisone-equivalent use. Real-world use of belimumab was associated with reductions in SLEDAI score (mean baseline score to month 6: 10.1-4.4; 57% reduction), prednisone-equivalent dosing (mean baseline dose to month 6: 12.1 mg/day to 6.9 mg/day; 43% reduction), and flare frequency (12 months prior to belimumab to 12 months after belimumab: 1.15-0.39 mean flares per patient per year; 66% reduction). Long-term data (up to 2 years post-treatment initiation) for SLEDAI score and prednisone-equivalent dose indicated that improvements in both outcomes continue over time among patients remaining on therapy.ConclusionsIn the real-world setting, observed outcomes with belimumab for the treatment of SLE are consistent with those reported from randomized clinical trials. Improvements persist long-term for SLEDAI activity and prednisone-equivalent use with belimumab.