RESUMO

Pembrolizumab monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy is approved as first-line treatment in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) based on improved overall survival (OS) versus EXTREME regimen in the KEYNOTE-048 trial. The clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab were compared with other recommended first-line treatments in R/M HNSCC in this study through a Bayesian network meta-analysis. A systematic literature review was conducted in July 2022, from which six trials that matched the KEYNOTE-048 patient eligibility criteria were included in the network. The OS and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes were compared in the approved pembrolizumab indication (i.e., total population for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and combined positive score [CPS] ≥ 1 population for pembrolizumab monotherapy). A significant OS improvement was observed for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy versus EXTREME regimen (hazard ratio, 95% credible interval: 0.72, 0.60-0.86; 0.73, 0.60-0.88), platinum+5- FU (0.58, 0.43-0.76; 0.58, 0.44-0.78), and platinum+paclitaxel (0.53, 0.35-0.79; 0.53, 0.35-0.81), respectively. A non-significant numeric trend in OS improvement was observed versus the TPEx regimen. PFS was comparable with most first-line treatments and was improved versus platinum+5-FU (0.48, 0.36-0.64; 0.59, 0.45-0.79). Additional analyses in higher CPS subgroups also showed consistent results. Overall, our study results showed an improvement in OS outcomes versus alternative first-line treatments, consistent with the findings of the KEYNOTE-048 trial. These data support using pembrolizumab as a suitable firstline treatment option in R/M HNSCC.

Pembrolizumabe em monoterapia ou em combinação com quimioterapia é aprovado como tratamento de primeira linha em carcinoma de células escamosas recorrente/metastático de cabeça e pescoço (CECCP R/M) com base na melhora da sobrevida global (OS), em comparação com o esquema EXTREME no estudo KEYNOTE-048. Esse estudo comparou os resultados clínicos de pembrolizumabe com outros tratamentos recomendados de primeira linha em CECCP R/M por meio de uma metanálise de rede bayesiana. Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi conduzida em julho de 2022, a partir da qual seis ensaios clínicos que atendiam aos critérios de elegibilidade de pacientes do KEYNOTE-048 foram incluídos na rede. Os desfechos de OS e sobrevida livre de progressão (PFS) foram comparados na indicação de pembrolizumabe (população total para pembrolizumabe em combinação com quimioterapia e população com escore positivo combinado [CPS] ≥ 1 em monoterapia com pembrolizumabe). Foi observada melhora significativa na OS para pembrolizumabe em combinação com quimioterapia e monoterapia com pembrolizumabe versus o esquema EXTREME (razão de risco, intervalo de confiança de 95%: 0,72, 0,60-0,86; 0,73, 0,60-0,88), platina+5-FU (0,58, 0,43-0,76; 0,58, 0,44-0,78) e platina+paclitaxel (0,53, 0,35-0,79; 0,53, 0,35-0,81), respectivamente. Uma tendência numérica não significativa de melhoria na OS foi observada em relação ao esquema TPEx. A PFS foi comparável com a maioria dos tratamentos de primeira linha e melhor em relação à platina+5-FU (0,48, 0,36-0,64; 0,59, 0,45-0,79). Análises adicionais em subgrupos com CPS mais elevado também mostraram resultados consistentes. No geral, os resultados de nosso estudo mostraram melhora nos desfechos de OS em comparação aos tratamentos de primeira linha alternativos, consistentes com os achados do estudo KEYNOTE-048. Esses dados apoiam o uso de pembrolizumabe como opção de tratamento em primeira linha em pacientes com CECCP R/M.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To describe adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of childhood type 1 diabetes and identify associated patient and system level factors. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective cohort study used population-based administrative data to describe individuals aged 1-24 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at <20 years of age (1472 unique individuals and 5883 person-years over a 7-year period) living in British Columbia, Canada. The outcome measure was proportion 'at goal,' which was defined as having optimal adherence (3 diabetes-related physician visits/year, 3 hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) tests/year, 1 glucagon prescription dispensed/year, and appropriate screening for diabetes-related comorbidity [ie, hypothyroidism] and complications [ie, retinopathy and nephropathy]), or good adherence to guidelines (2 diabetes-related physician visits/year, 2 HbA1c tests/year, and appropriate screening for diabetes-related comorbidity and complications). Statistical methods included descriptive statistics and logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent person-years had poor adherence to guidelines (<2 diabetes-related physician visits and HbA1c tests/year) and 7.4% had optimal adherence. The proportion of person-years at goal was higher in females vs males (41.0% vs 37.6%; P = .007). Individuals 4-years post-diagnosis of diabetes were 78% less likely to be at goal compared with the year of diagnosis (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of pediatric type 1 diabetes likely does not meet national and international standards. Future studies should explore facilitators and barriers to adherence to guidelines among health care providers, patients, and families, and whether adherence to guidelines is associated with glycemic control.

Assuntos