Dataset Information

Real-world analysis of hospitalizations in patients with epilepsy and treated with perampanel.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

(1) To evaluate risk of hospitalization following initiation of perampanel (pre- and post-analysis) and (2) to compare hospitalization rates following initiation of perampanel vs lacosamide.

Methods

Patients were identified from Symphony Health's Patient Integrated Database if they had a prescription for perampanel (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2016). Patients 4-11 years of age with any partial-onset seizure (POS) or ≥12 years of age with any POS or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTCS) (pre-post); or ≥12 years of age (perampanel vs lacosamide). The first fill of perampanel ("index date") marked the start of the analysis period. Patients had ≥1 additional fill for perampanel and ≥2 diagnoses for epilepsy or nonfebrile convulsion diagnosis during pre-index (based on ICD-9/ICD-10 codes). Patients were matched using a 1:1 propensity scoring method for the perampanel vs lacosamide analysis. Primary outcome was hospitalization during the one year following medication initiation.

Results

Pre- and post-perampanel: N = 1771 (mean age 34 years, 55% female). One-year all-cause hospitalization risk ratio was 0.76 (P < .05) and 36.2% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 29.5% in the follow-up. One-year epilepsy-related inpatient hospitalization risk ratio was 0.72 (P < .05) and 30.8% with hospitalization during the pre-period vs 23.9% during follow-up. In the perampanel and lacosamide cohorts, N = 1717 per cohort after matching, most baseline demographics were balanced. A higher percentage of subjects were prescribed ≥3 anti-seizure medications for perampanel vs lacosamide (60.5% vs 57.7%, P < .001). The perampanel cohort had a 9.6% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 5.8% for the lacosamide cohort (P < .05). Epilepsy-related hospitalizations decreased from the pre-index rate by 9.9% for perampanel and 8.3% for lacosamide (P < .05). Among those with baseline hospitalizations, perampanel was associated with a 59.9% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations vs 48.6% for lacosamide (P < .05), and for epilepsy-related hospitalizations, a reduction of 65.0% vs 58.9%, respectively (P < .05).

Significance

Perampanel was associated with a significant reduction in one-year hospitalization risk.

SUBMITTER: Faught E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8633480 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo gather real-world evidence on antiseizure medications (ASMs) treatment patterns and related outcomes in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.MethodsMedical insurance claims from the start of 2014 till the end of 2019 were used. Patient selection criteria included International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes followed by documented ASM use. Baseline patient demographics along with ASM and rescue medication use patterns and related patient outcome were documented for first (index) ASM regimen. Patients who failed the first regimen and then failed the second regimen were considered drug resistant. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify risks and other characteristics for positive or negative treatment outcomes.ResultsStudy cohort consisted of 46 474 patients with a mean age of 47.23 (SD: 16.94). Levetiracetam was the most first-encountered ASM (37.94%). At baseline, 87.14% were treated with ASMs prior to having study-confirmed diagnoses. Mental comorbidities were present in 37.86% of patients. After first-year ASM treatment, 34.61% of patients persisted on their index regimen and 5.91% were seizure-free. Patients failing first ASM regimen numbered 12 868 (27.69%). Drug-resistant patients who failed first and then second ASM regimens numbered 6335 (49.23%). Percentages of patients who had successful second treatment and seizure-free were 21.32 and 3.65, respectively. Initiating patients on lamotrigine or carbamazepine (relative to levetiracetam), baseline use of index ASM, rescue medications, and older age or male gender all lowered the risk for treatment failure. Having higher comorbidity, comorbid mental illness, headache, or neoplasty increased such a risk. Baseline use of index ASM, depressive episode, or anxiety disorder all entailed higher risk of failing second ASM treatment.SignificanceOverall, reported findings indicated that patient history at baseline and the early selection of an ASM all influenced treatment outcomes. Findings pointed to the complex nature of ASM treatment in drug-resistant focal epilepsy patients calling for additional research to identify the optimal treatment to achieve beneficial patient outcomes.

Project description:Most patients cannot be included in randomized clinical trials. We report real-world outcomes of all Danish patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with daratumumab-based regimens until 1 January 2019.MethodsInformation of 635 patients treated with daratumumab was collected retrospectively and included lines of therapy (LOT), hematologic responses according to the International Myeloma Working Group recommendations, time to next treatment (TNT) and the cause of discontinuation of treatment. Baseline characteristics were acquired from the validated Danish Multiple Myeloma Registry (DMMR).ResultsDaratumumab was administrated as monotherapy (Da-mono) in 27.7%, in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (Da-IMiD) in 57.3%, in combination with proteasome inhibitors (Da-PI) in 11.2% and in other combinations (Da-other) in 3.8% of patients. The median number of lines of therapy given before daratumumab was 5 for Da-mono, 3 for Da-IMiD, 4 for Da-PI, and 2 for Da-other. In Da-mono, overall response rate (ORR) was 44.9% and median time to next treatment (mTNT) was 4.9 months. In Da-IMiD, ORR was 80.5%, and mTNT was 16.1 months. In Da-PI, OOR was 60.6% and mTNT was 5.3 months. In patients treated with Da-other, OOR was 54,2% and mTNT was 5.6 months. The use of daratumumab in early LOT was associated with longer TNT (p<0.0001). Patients with amplification 1q had outcome comparable to standard risk patients, while patients with t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17p had worse outcome (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis indicated that timing of treatment (timing of daratumumab in the sequence of all LOT that the patients received throughout the course of their disease) was the most important factor for outcome (p<0.0001).ConclusionThe real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab are worse than the results of clinical trials. Outcomes achieved with daratumumab were best when daratumumab was used in combination with IMIDs and in early LOT. Patients with high-risk CA had worse outcomes, but patients with amp1q had similar outcomes to standard-risk patients.

Project description:Clinical trials that led to ibrutinib's approval for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia showed that its side effects differ from those of traditional chemotherapy. Reasons for discontinuation in clinical practice have not been adequately studied. We conducted a retrospective analysis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with ibrutinib either commercially or on clinical trials. We aimed to compare the type and frequency of toxicities reported in either setting, assess discontinuation rates, and evaluate outcomes. This multicenter, retrospective analysis included ibrutinib-treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients at nine United States cancer centers or from the Connect® Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Registry. We examined demographics, dosing, discontinuation rates and reasons, toxicities, and outcomes. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Six hundred sixteen ibrutinib-treated patients were identified. A total of 546 (88%) patients were treated with the commercial drug. Clinical trial patients were younger (mean age 58 versus 61 years, P=0.01) and had a similar time from diagnosis to treatment with ibrutinib (mean 85 versus 87 months, P=0.8). With a median follow-up of 17 months, an estimated 41% of patients discontinued ibrutinib (median time to ibrutinib discontinuation was 7 months). Notably, ibrutinib toxicity was the most common reason for discontinuation in all settings. The median progression-free survival and overall survival for the entire cohort were 35 months and not reached (median follow-up 17 months), respectively. In the largest reported series on ibrutinib- treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients, we show that 41% of patients discontinued ibrutinib. Intolerance as opposed to chronic lymphocytic leukemia progression was the most common reason for discontinuation. Outcomes remain excellent and were not affected by line of therapy or whether patients were treated on clinical studies or commercially. These data strongly argue in favor of finding strategies to minimize ibrutinib intolerance so that efficacy can be further maximized. Future clinical trials should consider time-limited therapy approaches, particularly in patients achieving a complete response, in order to minimize ibrutinib exposure.