OBJECTIVE: To identify the association of SOCS1 gene hypermethylation in mediating IM Resistance.
METHOD: The SOCS1 promoter methylation level of 92 BCR-ABL non mutated IM resistant CML patients, 83 IM good response CML patients and 5 normal samples from healthy individuals were measured using Methylation Specific-High Resolution Melt (MS-HRM) analysis.
RESULTS: Both primers used to amplify promoter region from -333 to -223 and from -332 to -188 showed less than 10% methylation in all CML and normal samples. Consequently, there was no significant difference in SOCS1 promoter methylation level between IM resistant and IM good response patients.
CONCLUSION: SOCS1 promoter methylation level is not suitable to be used as one of the biomarkers for predicting the possibility of acquiring resistance among CML patients treated with IM.
METHODS: Patients with CML were recruited from outpatient haematological clinics at the national centre of intervention and referral for haematological conditions and a public teaching hospital. The health-related quality of life or utility scores were derived using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Costing data were obtained from the Ministry of Health Malaysia Casemix MalaysianDRG. Imatinib and nilotinib drug costs were obtained from the administration of the participating hospitals and pharmaceutical company.
RESULTS: Of the 221 respondents in this study, 68.8% were imatinib users. The total care provider cost for CML treatment was USD23,014.40 for imatinib and USD43,442.69 for nilotinib. The governmental financial assistance programme reduced the total care provider cost to USD13,693.51 for imatinib and USD19,193.45 for nilotinib. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 17.87 and 20.91 per imatinib and nilotinib user, respectively. Nilotinib had a higher drug cost than imatinib, yet its users had better life expectancy, utility score, and QALYs. Imatinib yielded the lowest cost per QALYs at USD766.29.
CONCLUSION: Overall, imatinib is more cost-effective than nilotinib for treating CML in Malaysia from the care provider's perspective. The findings demonstrate the importance of cancer drug funding assistance for ensuring that the appropriate treatments are accessible and affordable and that patients with cancer use and benefit from such patient assistance programmes. To establish effective health expenditure, drug distribution inequality should be addressed.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic characteristics, treatment duration, and survival of patients with GIST in LMICs treated with imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective database cohort analysis included patients in 2 access programs administered by The Max Foundation: the Glivec International Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP), from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, and the Max Access Solutions (MAS) program, January 1, 2017, to October 12, 2020. Sixty-six countries in which The Max Foundation facilitates access to imatinib and sunitinib were included. Participants consisted of patients with approved indications for imatinib, including adjuvant therapy in high-risk GIST by pathologic evaluation of resected tumor or biopsy-proven unresectable or metastatic GIST. All patients were reported to have tumors positive for CD117(c-kit) by treating physicians. A total of 9866 patients received treatment for metastatic and/or unresectable disease; 2100 received adjuvant imatinib; 49 received imatinib from another source and were only included in the sunitinib analysis; and 53 received both imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs. Data were analyzed from October 13, 2020, to January 30, 2024.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographic and clinical information was reported by treating physicians. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS). An imputation-based informed censoring model estimated events for patients lost to follow-up after treatment with adjuvant imatinib. Patients who were lost to follow-up with metastatic or unresectable disease were presumed deceased.
RESULTS: A total of 12 015 unique patients were included in the analysis (6890 male [57.6%]; median age, 54 [range, 0-100] years). Of these, 2100 patients were treated with imatinib in the adjuvant setting (median age, 54 [range 8-88] years) and 9866 were treated with imatinib for metastatic or unresectable disease (median age, 55 [range, 0-100] years). Male patients comprised 5867 of 9866 patients (59.5%) with metastatic or unresectable disease and 1023 of 2100 patients (48.7%) receiving adjuvant therapy. The median OS with imatinib for unresectable or metastatic disease was 5.8 (95% CI, 5.6-6.1) years, and the median TTD was 4.2 (95% CI, 4.1-4.4) years. The median OS with sunitinib for patients with metastatic or unresectable GIST was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.5) years; the median TTD was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.1) years. The 10-year OS rate in the adjuvant setting was 73.8% (95% CI, 67.2%-81.1%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of patients with GIST who were predominantly from LMICs and received orally administered therapy through the GIPAP or MAS programs, outcomes were similar to those observed in high-resource countries. These findings underscore the feasibility and relevance of administering oral anticancer therapy to a molecularly defined population in LMICs, addressing a critical gap in cancer care.
SOURCES OF DATA: Recent published literature.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Corticosteroids and immunomodulators that antagonize the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor have been shown to play a critical role in modulating inflammation and improving clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Inhaled budesonide reduces the time to recovery in older patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed in the community.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The clinical benefit of remdesivir remains controversial with conflicting evidence from different trials. Remdesivir led to a reduction in time to clinical recovery in the ACTT-1 trial. However, the World Health Organization SOLIDARITY and DISCOVERY trial did not find a significant benefit on 28-day mortality and clinical recovery.
GROWING POINTS: Other treatments currently being investigated include antidiabetic drug empagliflozin, antimalarial drug artesunate, tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, immunomodulatory drug infliximab, antiviral drug favipiravir, antiparasitic drug ivermectin and antidepressant drug fluvoxamine.
AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: The timing of therapeutic interventions based on postulated mechanisms of action and the selection of clinically meaningful primary end points remain important considerations in the design and implementation of COVID-19 therapeutic trials.
AIM: To investigate the correlation of HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter DNA hypermethylation with imatinib resistance among CML patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Samples from 175 Philadelphia positive CML patients (83 good response and 92 BCR-ABL non-mutated imatinib resistant patients) were subjected to Methylation Specific High Resolution Melt Analysis for methylation levels quantification of the HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter regions. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was done to elucidate the optimal methylation cut-off point followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Log-Rank analysis was done to measure the overall survival difference between CML groups. The optimal methylation cut-off point was found to be at 62.5% for both HOXA4 and HOXA5. Chronic myeloid leukemia patients with ≥63% HOXA4 and HOXA5 methylation level were shown to have 3.78 and 3.95 times the odds, respectively, to acquire resistance to imatinib. However, overall survival of CML patients that have ≤62% and ≥ 63% methylation levels of HOXA4 and HOXA5 genes were found to be not significant (P-value = 0.126 for HOXA4; P-value = 0.217 for HOXA5).
CONCLUSION: Hypermethylation of the HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter is correlated with imatinib resistance and with further investigation, it could be a potential epigenetic biomarker in supplement to the BCR-ABL gene mutation in predicting imatinib treatment response among CML patients but could not be considered as a prognostic marker.