Citations

Abstract Aims To evaluate whether the effect of inclisiran to lower LDL-C varied by background lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Methods and results In ORION-10 and ORION-11 Phase 3 trials, patients (N = 3178) with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or ASCVD risk equivalents were randomized 1:1 to receive inclisiran or placebo on Day 1, Day 90, and 6-monthly thereafter. In this pooled post hoc analysis, patients were stratified by baseline combination therapy [statin plus ezetimibe (n = 214; 6.7%)], monotherapy [statin (n = 2711; 85.3%) or ezetimibe (n = 54; 1.7%)], or neither LLT [none (n = 199; 6.3%)] into therapy groups with/without other LLT. Stratification by baseline statin intensity was also performed (N = 3155). Relative and absolute changes in LDL-C were assessed. Mean (±SD) baseline LDL-C was 2.7 mmol/L (±1.0), 2.6 mmol/L (±0.9), 3.7 mmol/L (±1.7), and 4.1 mmol/L (±1.5) among patients receiving combination, statin, ezetimibe, or neither LLT, respectively. In these categories, mean (95% confidence interval) time-adjusted, placebo-corrected percentage change in LDL-C after Day 90 to Day 540 with inclisiran were −57.0% (−63.8, −50.1), −51.5.% (−53.4, −49.7), −50.5.% (−59.6, −41.5), and −43.1% (−48.7, −37.6); corresponding absolute changes were −1.5 mmol/L (−1.7, −1.3), −1.3 mmol/L (−1.4, −1.3), −1.7 mmol/L (−2.0, −1.4), and −1.7 mmol/L (−1.9, −1.5). Conclusion Sustained and effective LDL-C lowering with inclisiran was observed irrespective of background LLT treatment. Inclisiran was overall well tolerated with all background LLT treatments, consistent with its established safety profile.

Abstract Purpose To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2025 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. Methods Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2025 were reviewed—including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, endocrine drugs, generics, specialty drugs and vaccines. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2024 were made based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. Results In 2024, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 10.2% compared to 2023, for a total of $805.9 billion. Utilization (a 7.9% increase) and new drugs (a 2.5% increase) drove this increase, while prices remained flat (a 0.2% decrease). Semaglutide was the top drug in 2024, followed by tirzepatide and adalimumab. Drug expenditures were $39.0 billion (a 4.9% increase) and $158.2 billion (a 14.4% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, increased utilization drove growth, with a small contribution from new products, while prices remained flat. In nonfederal hospitals, new products, price, and new volume each contributed modestly to growth in spend. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2025. Specialty, endocrine, and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. Conclusion For 2025, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 9.0 to 11.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate an 11.0% to 13.0% increase and a 2.0% to 4.0% increase, respectively, compared to 2024. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the gold standard for the resection of rectal cancer regardless of the modality: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. The transanal TME (TaTME) approach has been utilized to overcome the difficulties encountered with the dissection of tumors in the distal pelvis. Recently, a single-port robotic approach (rSPa) was introduced, where three arms and a camera emanate from a 2.5 cm diameter port. This report presents the first experience in the United States combining those two approaches (rSPa TaTME) in rectal cancer, evaluating its safety and oncologic outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained rectal cancer database. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant treatment, and oncologic and surgical outcomes were recorded. Results: Between May 2022 and August 2024, ten patients (six females, four males) with a median age at surgery of 53 years (range: 38–85) and a mean BMI of 26 (±5) kg/m2 were included for analysis. The median distance of tumors from the anorectal junction was 3.2 cm (range: 2–5.3 cm). All patients had negative margins, with eight complete TME specimens, one near complete, and one incomplete. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 24 (±11). The average operative time was 351 (243–411) min. The average length of stay was four days. The ileostomy was reversed in nine out of ten patients. Six patients experienced complications within 30 days of surgery. There were no local or distal recurrences, with a mean follow-up of 20 months (range: 4–30). Conclusions: rSPa TaTME is a unique and innovative method of combining two minimally advanced approaches for the resection of distal rectal cancers, with acceptable surgical and oncologic outcomes.

ABSTRACTAlthough recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy in relapsed large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) with MYC rearrangement (R‐MYC), the data comparing CAR‐T to autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto‐HCT) in such patients who achieve a complete or partial response (CR/PR) after salvage therapies are limited. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with R‐MYC LBCL (including double and triple hit lymphomas) who underwent CAR‐T or auto‐HCT after achieving a CR/PR with salvage therapies using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research registry. Among the 252 patients (auto‐HCT = 98, CAR‐T = 154), relative to auto‐HCT, CAR‐T was associated with significantly lower overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.09, 95% CI 1.38–3.15, p < 0.001) on multivariate analysis. There were no differences in progression‐free survival (PFS) (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81–1.8 p = 0.36), risk of relapse (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.71–1.69 p = 0.68), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (HR 1.74, 95% CI 0.64–4.7 p = 0.28) while the post‐relapse survival was longer in auto‐HCT relative to CAR‐T (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21–3.06 p = 0.01). On propensity score matched analysis accounting for differences in characteristics across the two cohorts, we detected no significant differences in OS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.92–3.21 p = 0.09), PFS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64–1.68 p = 0.88), NRM (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35–4.2 p = 0.76), relapse (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.54–1.6 p = 0.8) and post‐relapse survival (HR 2.25, 95% CI 0.98–5.17, p = 0.06). These data, although retrospective, support consideration for auto‐HCT in patients with R‐MYC LBCL who achieve a CR/PR after salvage therapies, particularly in regions with no or limited access to CAR‐T.

ABSTRACT Background Hospital at home (HaH) provides hospital‐level care at home as a substitute for brick‐and‐mortar hospital care. Multiple HaH studies demonstrate HaH provides safe, high‐quality, cost‐effective care. However, practices have varied approaches to delivering care and no HaH‐specific national standards exist. We aimed to develop national practice standards for HaH and assess practice performance against the standards. Methods The HaH Users Group (HaHUG), the national convener of HaH practices, assembled the Practice Standards Council in 2019 to develop evidence‐based standards for HaH. We reviewed existing international standards and the requirements of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Acute Hospital Care at Home Waiver. We engaged in multiple iterative rounds to develop domains and standards within each domain and then held an open comment period. We distributed an online survey for all HaHUG practices to self‐assess whether they did not meet (score, −1), met (score, 0), or exceeded (score, +1) each standard. The American Hospital Association's Annual Survey was used to describe practices that did and did not complete the practice standards survey. Results Final practice standards included 31 standards in 7 domains: leadership; education and training; human resources management; quality and quality improvement; safe practice and environment; and clinical standards and protocols. The majority of HaH practices self‐rated that they met or exceeded standards: scores ranged from −5 to 31; mean score of 9.75 (SD, 12.60). Forty‐nine of 213 eligible HaH practices completed the survey (response rate, 23.0%). Most hospitals were large (65% > 299 beds), nonprofit (85%), teaching (90%) centers that cared for a large proportion of patients with Medicaid. Conclusion We present the first national practice standards for HaH. The vast majority of HaH practices met or exceeded these standards by their own assessment. There was a range of performance across standards, demonstrating strengths and opportunities for ongoing development and quality improvement.