Chin-Yao Shen1, Philip Chun-Ming Au2, Yeon-Hee Baek3, Ching-Lung Cheung2, Wei-Pang Chung4,5, Ju Hwan Kim3, Nora J Kleinman6, Tai-Chung Lam7, Tzu-Chi Liao1, Tzu-Chieh Lin8, Ju-Young Shin3,9, Chor-Wing Sing2, Ian Chi Kei Wong2,10, Edward Chia-Cheng Lai11,12. 1. School of Pharmacy, Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan. 2. Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. 3. School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), Suwon, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Oncology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 5. Center for Applied Nanomedicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 6. Amgen Asia Holdings Limited, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. 7. Department of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. 8. Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. 9. Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences and Technology (SAIHST), Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 10. Research Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK. 11. School of Pharmacy, Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan. edward_lai@mail.ncku.edu.tw. 12. Department of Pharmacy, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan. edward_lai@mail.ncku.edu.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of bone-targeting agents has been confirmed, but the generalizability of results to Asia is in question. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate and compare treatment persistence and re-initiation with different bone-targeting agents among patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included patients with bone metastasis with breast, lung, or prostate cancer who initiated bone-targeting agents, including denosumab, zoledronic acid, and pamidronate in Taiwan (2013-17), Hong Kong (2013-17), and Korea (2012-16). We described the patients' persistence with bone-targeting agents, by evaluating the interruption probability, and compared risks of treatment interruption. The rates of re-initiation with index bone-targeting agents were evaluated. RESULTS: We included 5127 patients (denosumab: 3440, zoledronic acid: 1210, pamidronate: 477) from Taiwan, 883 patients (denosumab: 458, zoledronic acid: 357, pamidronate: 68) from Hong Kong, and 4800 patients (zoledronic acid: 4068, pamidronate: 732) from Korea. Compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab had a lower risk of interruption in Taiwan (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.48) and Hong Kong (0.36; 0.28-0.45). However, pamidronate was more likely to be interrupted than zoledronic acid in Taiwan (1.31; 1.11-1.54) and Korea (2.06; 1.83-2.32), but not in Hong Kong (1.13; 0.71-1.78). After discontinuation, original treatments with denosumab in Taiwan and zoledronic acid in Hong Kong were more likely to be resumed, while in Korea, the rates were similar among the bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab was associated with a lower risk of interruption than bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Further investigations may be required to verify patients' actual reasons for discontinuation.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of bone-targeting agents has been confirmed, but the generalizability of results to Asia is in question. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate and compare treatment persistence and re-initiation with different bone-targeting agents among patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included patients with bone metastasis with breast, lung, or prostate cancer who initiated bone-targeting agents, including denosumab, zoledronic acid, and pamidronate in Taiwan (2013-17), Hong Kong (2013-17), and Korea (2012-16). We described the patients' persistence with bone-targeting agents, by evaluating the interruption probability, and compared risks of treatment interruption. The rates of re-initiation with index bone-targeting agents were evaluated. RESULTS: We included 5127 patients (denosumab: 3440, zoledronic acid: 1210, pamidronate: 477) from Taiwan, 883 patients (denosumab: 458, zoledronic acid: 357, pamidronate: 68) from Hong Kong, and 4800 patients (zoledronic acid: 4068, pamidronate: 732) from Korea. Compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab had a lower risk of interruption in Taiwan (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.48) and Hong Kong (0.36; 0.28-0.45). However, pamidronate was more likely to be interrupted than zoledronic acid in Taiwan (1.31; 1.11-1.54) and Korea (2.06; 1.83-2.32), but not in Hong Kong (1.13; 0.71-1.78). After discontinuation, original treatments with denosumab in Taiwan and zoledronic acid in Hong Kong were more likely to be resumed, while in Korea, the rates were similar among the bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab was associated with a lower risk of interruption than bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Further investigations may be required to verify patients' actual reasons for discontinuation.
Authors: L S Rosen; D Gordon; M Kaminski; A Howell; A Belch; J Mackey; J Apffelstaedt; M Hussein; R E Coleman; D J Reitsma; J J Seaman; B L Chen; Y Ambros Journal: Cancer J Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Mellissa Yong; Annette Östergaard Jensen; Jacob Bonde Jacobsen; Mette Nørgaard; Jon P Fryzek; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-04-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: R L Theriault; A Lipton; G N Hortobagyi; R Leff; S Glück; J F Stewart; S Costello; I Kennedy; J Simeone; J J Seaman; R D Knight; K Mellars; M Heffernan; D J Reitsma Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alison T Stopeck; Allan Lipton; Jean-Jacques Body; Guenther G Steger; Katia Tonkin; Richard H de Boer; Mikhail Lichinitser; Yasuhiro Fujiwara; Denise A Yardley; María Viniegra; Michelle Fan; Qi Jiang; Roger Dansey; Susie Jun; Ada Braun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew R Smith; Fred Saad; Robert Coleman; Neal Shore; Karim Fizazi; Bertrand Tombal; Kurt Miller; Paul Sieber; Lawrence Karsh; Ronaldo Damião; Teuvo L Tammela; Blair Egerdie; Hendrik Van Poppel; Joseph Chin; Juan Morote; Francisco Gómez-Veiga; Tomasz Borkowski; Zhishen Ye; Amy Kupic; Roger Dansey; Carsten Goessl Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Hechmati; S Cure; A Gouépo; H Hoefeler; V Lorusso; D Lüftner; I Duran; C Garzon-Rodriguez; J Ashcroft; R Wei; P Ghelani; A Bahl Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Vera Hirsh; Salvatore Siena; David H Henry; Penella J Woll; Christian Manegold; Philippe Solal-Celigny; Gladys Rodriguez; Maciej Krzakowski; Nilesh D Mehta; Lara Lipton; José Angel García-Sáenz; José Rodrigues Pereira; Kumar Prabhash; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; Vladimir Kanarev; Huei Wang; Arun Balakumaran; Ira Jacobs Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: J Pereira; J-J Body; O Gunther; H Sleeboom; G Hechmati; N Maniadakis; E Terpos; Y P Acklin; J Finek; R von Moos Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 2.448