In This Article
- How Oncology Pharmacists Can Enhance Patient Quality of Care
- Metastasis-Free Survival for Prostate Cancer Longerwith Apalutamide than with Placebo
- Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab Combination Improves Overall Survival in Untreated Renal-Cell Carcinoma
How Oncology Pharmacists Can Enhance Patient Quality of Care
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) in 2006 to facilitate quality measurement of patient care, and to continuously improve cancer care. However, the extent to which pharmacists can affe ct patient care and its reimbursement through the QOPI metrics is unknown. Because pharmacists are a vital part of the care team, providing direct patient care and developing medication use guidelines and practice-based policies, a team of 3 pharmacists studied the 200 Fall 2016 QOPI measures for potential areas for pharmacist involvement.
METHODS: Among the 200 QOPI measures reviewed, the researchers analyzed 177 measures, which encompass disease- and domain-specific content areas. Using the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Scope of Practice document and a summary of oncology pharmacist services, they identified which practice domains and pharmacy services would be most appropriate for pharmacist involvement based on the selected QOPI measures.
RESULTS: A total of 67 (38%) metrics were identified as potential areas for pharmacist involvement. The majority of measures were related to optimizing drug therapy by creating and implementing pharmacy guidelines. The measures that pharmacists could intervene in successfully to improve quality of care pertained to symptom management, oral chemotherapy, and other measures regarding appropriate medication use and monitoring.
The 110 measures that were not deemed actionable for pharmacist intervention included documentation of patient-specific parameters, ordering of imaging, and genetic counseling. In addition, the researchers noted that 6 of the 16 oncology Merit-Based Incentive Payment System measures for 2017 aligned with 25 of the QOPI measures they identified that could benefit from pharmacist involvement.
“Our review demonstrates that multiple opportunities exist for pharmacists to directly impact the quality metrics that are measured by ASCO QOPI,” the researchers said.
“Practicing pharmacists have the education and training necessary to impact these measures as part of their current scope of work. Focusing new services and patient care activities to address validated quality metrics is a natural next step in the care that oncology clinical pharmacists provide to patients given the potential to improve patient care and enhance reimbursement for oncology practices,” they concluded.
Source: Vulaj V, Hough S, Bedard L, et al. Oncology pharmacist opportunities: closing the gap in quality care. J Oncol Pract. 2018 Jan 3. Epub ahead of print.
Metastasis-Free Survival for Prostate Cancer Longer with Apalutamide than with Placebo
BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with bilateral orchiectomy or drugs that suppress testosterone production is the mainstay of treatment for patients with metastatic prostate cancer, as well as for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Although ADT is initially effective, it stops working in almost all patients with prostate cancer, leading to castration-resistant disease. Apalutamide is a nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy that was developed for the treatment of prostate cancer. A phase 2 clinical trial of apalutamide treatment in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) at high risk for progression resulted in durable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses. In a phase 3 clinical trial, researchers evaluated the efficacy of apalutamide for metastasis-free survival in men with nonmetastatic CRPC and a PSA doubling time of ≤10 months.
METHODS: The international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 SPARTAN trial included 1207 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer that had stopped responding to ADT and had a rapid PSA doubling time. Patients were randomized 2:1 to apalutamide 240 mg daily (N = 806) or placebo (N = 401) and were evaluated every 16 weeks for signs of disease progression. ADT was continued for all patients. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival. Secondary end points included time to metastasis, progression-free survival (PFS), time to symptomatic progression, overall survival (OS), and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy initiation.
RESULTS: The median metastasis-free survival was >2 years longer in the apalutamide group (40.5 months) than in the placebo group (16.2 months). Time to metastasis, PFS, and time to symptomatic progression were significantly longer for patients who received apalutamide versus placebo (P <.001 for all comparisons). Furthermore, OS, time to the initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and second PFS (ie, time from randomization to investigator-assessed disease progression) were longer with apalutamide than with placebo; the researchers noted that these particular findings support the clinical benefit of apalutamide.
The rate of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was <11% in both arms—10.6% with apalutamide and 7.0% with placebo. Apalutamide was associated with higher rates of fatigue (30.4%), rash (23.8%), weight loss (16.1%), arthralgia (15.9%), falls (15.6%), and fractures (11.7%) versus placebo. The majority of adverse events were grade 1 or 2.
“The consistent increase in metastasis-free survival associated with apalutamide across all patient subgroups…suggests that the clinical benefits of apalutamide extend to patients with a high disease burden,” the researchers said.
Source: Smith MR, Saad F, Chowdhury S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1408-1418.
Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab Combination Improves Overall Survival in Untreated Renal-Cell Carcinoma
BACKGROUND: Among patients with untreated or treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC), nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in an objective response rate of 40% and a 2-year overall survival (OS) of 67% to 70%, depending on the dose. Researchers recently reported updated results from the CheckMate-214 trial that compared the efficacy and OS benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated advanced RCC.
“Approximately 75% of patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma have intermediate- or poor-risk disease and have worse outcomes than those with favorable-risk disease,” the researchers said. “Combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown promising efficacy in multiple tumor types, resulting in higher rates of response than either agent alone, and is approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma.”
METHODS: CheckMate-214 was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial that included 1096 patients with advanced RCC, with 847 classified as intermediate- or poor-risk. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg over 60 minutes) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg over 30 minutes) every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, or oral sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. The co-primary end points were objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and OS.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the 18-month OS was 75% with the combination versus 60% with sunitinib. The median OS was not reached for the combination immunotherapy arm versus 26.0 months for the sunitinib arm. The combination therapy also produced better rates of objective response and complete response (42% and 9%, respectively) compared with sunitinib (27% and 1%, respectively). The combination arm also demonstrated longer median PFS than the sunitinib arm (11.6 months vs 8.4 months, respectively; P = .03), but this was not significant because the between-group difference did not meet the prespecified threshold (P = .009).
The majority of patients in both treatment groups had treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 events were less common in the combination arm than in the sunitinib arm (46% vs 63%, respectively). Adverse events that led to therapy discontinuation were reported in 22% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with 12% of patients receiving sunitinib.
Source: Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1277-1290.