Andrews, Jane Mary

Abstract Introduction Significant clinical variations exist in the definitions of acute/active vs chronic/stable Peyronie’s Disease (PD). While the American Urological Association’s 2015 guidelines define the acute phase as involving symptoms that change and the presence of pain, they do not specify a timeframe. Historically, acute-phase features include penile pain and worsening curvature, with symptom duration ranging from less than 3 to 18 months. Although temporally categorizing PD may have academic value, it may unnecessarily limit or delay treatment. In the United States, collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) is the only FDA-approved treatment for adult men with PD who have a palpable plaque and a curvature deformity of at least 30 degrees. Several real-world studies suggest CCH is safe and effective during the acute phase. Objective To evaluate differences in outcomes by penile pain and symptom duration and to determine whether these factors should inform timing of CCH treatment in men with Peyronie’s disease. Methods A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 2 phase 3 randomized double-blind trials of CCH in PD (IMPRESS I, NCT01221597; IMPRESS II, NCT01221623). Men treated with CCH were stratified by baseline penile pain (Any Pain vs No Pain), based on both investigator-assessed and patient-reported measures. A subgroup analysis further stratified men with Any Pain by disease duration. The primary efficacy endpoint in the phase 3 study was the percentage change in penile curvature from baseline to week 52. A 2-sample t test was used to compare group means for each pain-related measure. Results A total of 364 CCH-treated men were included. Mean penile curvature improvements at week 52 were similar across all 4 investigator-assessed and patient-reported penile pain measures (35.0%-36.7% improvement for the No Pain group vs 32.2%-33.9% improvement for the Any Pain group, P=0.14-0.65). Among those experiencing Any Pain, no statistical differences were observed in men with disease durations that were shorter (12-18 months; 21.8%-34.8% improvement) vs longer (greater than 18 months; 31.4%-36.8% improvement, P=0.20-0.95). Conclusions This study found similar curvature improvements among men treated with CCH regardless of baseline pain or disease duration. Results align with prior studies showing no outcome differences by pain status or disease phase. These findings suggest that pain and disease duration should not be viewed as contraindications to CCH or used to guide clinical decision-making. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Endo USA, Inc. Clarification: Industry initiated, executed and funded study Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Endo USA, Inc.

Abstract Introduction Peyronie’s disease (PD) is traditionally categorized into 2 phases: acute (active) and chronic (stable) phase; however, clinical definitions and distinction between the phases vary in the literature and remain blurred.[1] The American Urological Association guidelines outline changing symptoms with the presence of pain as a defining symptom of acute disease, but provide little guidance about timeframe.[2] Historically, acute-phase characteristics include presence of penile pain and progressing deformity (eg, worsening penile curvature), with time from symptom onset to acute phase completion being <3–18 months.[1] While there may be academic utility in temporally categorizing PD, it may limit or postpone the treatment options for patients suffering from the condition. Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) is an approved nonsurgical PD treatment option and several studies suggest its safety and efficacy in acute phase PD.[3-6] In light of these studies and ambiguity in dichotomizing phases, previous clinical trial data were reanalyzed to investigate the potential for opening the gamut of treatment options at earlier timepoints in the disease process. Objective This analysis examines CCH treatment efficacy on improving penile curvature in participants presenting with/without penile pain at baseline and disease duration of 12–18 months or >18 months from the CCH clinical trial program. Methods Literature related to CCH treatment of acute phase PD was compiled and treatment outcomes assessed. Additionally, a post hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 randomized, double-blind trials of CCH in PD (IMPRESS I, NCT01221597; IMPRESS II, NCT01221623) was conducted. CCH-treated participants were stratified by the reporting of moderate-severe pain or no pain at baseline based on the following study measures: penile pain on palpation, penile pain on erection, PD questionnaire (PDQ) combined questions 7–9, and PDQ question 10 only. Additional subgroup analyses stratified participants by presence of pain and disease duration (12–18 or >18 months). The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage change in penile curvature at week 52 from baseline. Results The IMPRESS I/II data analysis found that participants who experienced moderate-severe pain at baseline had penile curvature improvements by week 52 similar to participants with no pain at baseline. Across all pain measures, the percentage decreases in mean penile curvature from baseline ranged from 29%–42% for moderate-severe pain groups and 35%–37% for no penile pain groups. There were no clear differences in mean penile curvature improvement between groups for any specific pain measure when stratified by disease duration of 12–18 months (moderate-severe pain, 32%–40% improvement; no pain, 23%–29% improvement) versus >18 months (moderate-severe pain, 24%–44% improvement; no pain, 37%–40% improvement). Outcomes from the IMPRESS trials were comparable in context with published literature. Conclusions Based on a subanalysis of IMPRESS data, there were no clear differences identified in CCH treatment outcomes between participants experiencing moderate-severe pain or no pain at baseline regardless of disease duration (12–18 versus >18 months). These analyses are consistent with other literature evaluating the efficacy of CCH in the acute phase of disease and suggest that ongoing pain is not a contraindication to CCH therapy. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. Clarification: Industry initiated, executed and funded study. Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc; Boston Scientific Corporation; Antares Pharma, Inc; PathRight Medical.

Abstract Background Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), together known as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), affect approximately seven million people globally. The continuous rise in IBD prevalence and the aging of populations will inevitably lead to an increasing use of health care resources. In parallel with these trends, continuing innovations in IBD therapeutics, diagnostics, and preventatives are creating more options for IBD patients seeking to reduce their disease burden. These trends pose an imminent burden on health care systems and require that we identify modifiable cost drivers in IBD care and develop strategies for delivering equitable and affordable care for all patients. Methods This Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission, consisting of a diverse faculty of health care professionals with expertise in the field of IBD and health economists, was formed to deliver an extensive summary of the literature and discuss key topics on the costs and cost-effectiveness of treating IBD in the present, and how this is likely to look in the future. Furthermore, it offers suggestions for how to deliver affordable IBD care in the coming years. The report’s focus was on high-income countries in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, and Asia. Results The Commission drew together a wide range of expertise to discuss the current costs of IBD care, the drivers of increasing costs, as well as how to deliver affordable care for IBD in the future. The key conclusions are that (i) increases in health care costs must be evaluated against improved disease control and reductions in indirect costs, and (ii) that overarching systems for data interoperability, registries, and big data approaches must be established for continuous assessment of effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of care. International collaborations should be sought in order to evaluate novel models of care (such as value-based health care, including integrated health care and participatory health care models), as well as to improve the education and training of clinicians, patients, and policymakers. Measures to reduce the costs of IBD care are summarised in Table 1. Conclusion Increases in health care costs must be evaluated against improved disease control and reductions in indirect costs. Evaluations should be systematically aligned between countries and regions. Detailed analysis of the current epidemiology and the likely effects of changing IBD management on disease course and socioeconomic outcomes is essential; and will become even more imperative in the era of precision medicine, where complex biotechnologies will require expensive analyses, highly skilled personnel, and drug development for what may sometimes be relatively small patient groups.