Effectiveness,safety and quality of life of trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data from the noninterventional TACTIC study in Germany

The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good (<3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%-CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4-8.6], median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8-3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1-17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6-9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4-7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3-5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0-3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4-2.8] months) were longer. Patient-reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, PRO-CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI-related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health-related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.     

Adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medications and associations with clinical and economic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic literature review

We designed a systematic literature review to identify available evidence on adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medication in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Electronic screening and congress searches identified real-world noninterventional studies (published between 2010 and October 2020) reporting estimates of adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medication in adults with T2D, and associations with glycaemic control, microvascular and/or macrovascular complications, hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Ninety-two relevant studies were identified, the majority of which were retrospective and reported US data. The proportions of patients considered adherent (median [range] 51.2% [9.4%-84.3%]) or persistent (median [range] 47.7% [16.9%-94.0%]) varied widely across studies. Multiple studies reported an association between greater adherence/persistence and greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin levels. Better adherence/persistence was associated with fewer microvascular and/or macrovascular outcomes, although there was little consistency across studies in terms of which outcomes were improved. More adherent and more persistent patients were typically less likely to be hospitalized or to have emergency department visits/admissions and spent fewer days in hospital annually than less adherent/persistent patients. Greater adherence and persistence were generally associated with lower hospitalization costs, higher pharmacy costs and lower or budget-neutral total healthcare costs compared with lower adherence/persistence. In conclusion, better adherence and persistence in people with T2D is associated with lower rates of microvascular and/or macrovascular outcomes and inpatient hospitalization, and lower or budget-neutral total healthcare expenditure. Education and treatment strategies to address suboptimal adherence and persistence are needed to improve clinical and economic outcomes.     

Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Ramucirumab in Combination with FOLFOX4 in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Nonrandomized,Open‐Label,Phase Ib Study

Lessons Learned

• The combination of ramucirumab (8 mg/kg intravenous, day 1 every 2 weeks) and FOLFOX4 as first‐line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was not sufficiently tolerated.
• Preliminary efficacy data suggest that the combination may provide clinical benefit to patients with HCC.
• Dose modification and patient selection should be considered for the future development of ramucirumab plus FOLFOX chemotherapy for advanced HCC.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to investigate the safety, preliminary efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of ramucirumab plus FOLFOX4 as first‐line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsPatients received ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously (IV) on day 1, followed by FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² IV on day 1, folinic acid 200 mg/m² IV, bolus fluorouracil [5‐FU] 400 mg/m², and a continuous infusion of 5‐FU 600 mg/m² over 22 hours, on days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was to assess the safety and tolerability of the combination therapy.ResultsEight patients (6 men, 2 women) were treated; all eight patients experienced at least one treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE) of grade ≥3. Dose‐limiting toxicities occurred in three patients (37.5%): hepatic hemorrhage (grade 4), blood bilirubin increased (grade 3), and febrile neutropenia (grade 3). Two patients discontinued study because of hepatic hemorrhage (grade 4) and blood bilirubin increase (grade 3). Six deaths occurred due to progressive disease, and no deaths due to TEAEs.ConclusionThere were no unexpected safety findings with ramucirumab plus FOLFOX4 based on the known safety and toxicity of this regimen. The combination was not sufficiently tolerated in patients with advanced HCC at the specified dose and schedule.     

Working the edges of Posthuman disability studies: theorising with disabled young people with life‐limiting impairments

This paper is built upon an assumption: that social theory can be generated through a meaningful engagement with a co‐researcher group of disabled young people. Our co‐researchers are theoretical provocateurs and theorists in their own right who, through their activism and writing, are challenging us to reconsider the meaning of life, death and disability. Their work on our funded Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) project has enabled us to consider the promise and potential of humanist and posthuman epistemologies, theories, methodologies, interventions and activisms. The paper introduces the research, the authors of this paper (academics and co‐researchers) and then explores three layers of analysis that work the edges of posthuman thinking; sovereign and assembled selves; affects and desires; mourning and affirmation. We conclude by asserting that as a research team we are engaging with a DisHuman approach to theory and activism: one that blends the pragmatics of humanism with posthuman possibilities.