Background

Central venous catheter (CVC) occlusion is common, affecting 30% of all CVCs.

Objective

To compare length of stay (LOS), costs, and readmissions associated with the use of alteplase to clear catheter blockage to outcomes associated with catheter replacement.

Design

Retrospective observational study utilizing a large hospital database.

Participants

Hospitalized patients treated for catheter occlusion from January 2006 to December 2011.

Main measures

Univariate analyses of patient characteristics and treatment patterns and multivariable regression analyses of postocclusion hospital costs, LOS, and 30- and 90-day readmissions were conducted.

Key results

We included 34,579 patients treated for a CVC occlusion by replacement (N=1028) or by alteplase (2 mg) administration (N=33,551). Patients receiving alteplase were somewhat younger than those having catheter replacement (60 ± 19 vs 62 ± 20 years old, P=0.0002). After adjusting for patient and hospital factors via regression modeling, average daily postocclusion costs were $317 lower for alteplase recipients than for catheter replacement patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 238.22-392.24; P<0.0001). Adjusted total postocclusion costs were $1419 lower for alteplase recipients versus patients receiving catheter replacement (95% CI: 307.27-2458.12; P=0.0121). Postocclusion operating room/surgery, radiology, and supply costs were significantly lower for alteplase recipients (P<0.001). Average adjusted postocclusion LOS was similar for both groups (P>0.05). Odds of readmission were not significantly different at 30 or 90 days.

Conclusions

Among patients treated for an occluded CVC, alteplase-treated patients had lower daily and total postocclusion costs than patients receiving catheter replacement. Cost differences were mainly driven by lower operating room/surgery, radiology, and supplier costs.

Purpose

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have limited treatment options after progressing on hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) + radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) in men with mCRPC.

Patients and methods

This phase Ib study evaluated atezolizumab + radium-223 in men with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases that progressed after androgen pathway inhibitor treatment. Following safety assessment of concurrent dosing, 45 men were randomized 1:1:1 to concurrent or one of two staggered dosing schedules with either agent introduced one cycle before the other. This was followed by a safety-efficacy expansion cohort (randomized 1:1:1). The primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), PSA responses, and overall survival (OS).

Results

As of October 4, 2019, 44 of 45 men were evaluable. All 44 had ≥1 all-cause adverse event (AE); 23 (52.3%) had a grade 3/4 AE. Fifteen (34.1%) grade 3/4 and 3 (6.8%) grade 5 AEs were related to atezolizumab; none were related to radium-223. Confirmed ORR was 6.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-18.7], median rPFS was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-4.6), median PSA progression was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-3.3), and median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 10.9-22.3).

Conclusions

This phase Ib study demonstrated that atezolizumab + radium-223, regardless of administration schedule, had greater toxicity than either drug alone, with no clear evidence of additional clinical benefit for patients with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases.