Assessing the long-term implications of age 9 initiation of HPV vaccination on series completion by age 13-15 in the US: projections from an age-structured vaccination model.

Introduction: Routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the US is recommended at ages 11 or 12 years and can be given at age 9. Vaccination completion rates among adolescents 13-15 years in the US remain below the 80% goal. This study evaluated the long-term effects of increasing proactive HPV vaccination initiation rates at age 9 years in completion rates of adolescents. Methods: An age-structured vaccination model was developed and parametrized based on the National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) survey data. The model projected vaccination coverage (by vaccination status and age group), for 20 years, for a routine initiation scenario (no increase in initiation rates of 9-year-olds) and different proactive initiation (increased age 9 initiation) scenarios. The time to reach a completion rate of 80% for 13-15-year-olds was estimated. The model also generated projections stratified for subgroups of interest. Results: Results indicated that vaccine completion rates of 80% in 13-15-year-olds may not be achieved by 2040 under current trends of routine initiation at ages 11 or 12 years. However, increasing initiation rates in 9-year-olds by 1% and 3% annually could shorten the time to achieve 80% completion by 4 and 8 years, respectively. Stratification analyses showed that increasing initiation rates in 9-year-olds can also reduce disparities across subgroups in the time to achieve vaccination completion targets. Discussion: Increasing HPV vaccination initiation rates in 9-year-olds by as little as 1%-3% annually may be an effective strategy to improve HPV vaccination completion rates in adolescents by age 15 and reach the Healthy People goal of 80% completion much earlier.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of ozanimod versus other oral DMTs in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a synthesis of matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.

Background: Several oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). In the absence of head-to-head randomized data, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) can evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of ozanimod versus other oral DMTs in RRMS. Objectives: To synthesize results from the published MAICs of ozanimod and other oral DMTs for 2-year outcomes in RRMS. Methods: Published MAICs involving ozanimod for the treatment of RRMS were identified. Extracted data elements included efficacy [annualized relapse rate (ARR), confirmed disability progression (CDP), and brain volume loss] and safety [adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, and infection] outcomes. Results: The four MAIC studies identified compared ozanimod with fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate (DMF), and ponesimod. All comparisons were adjusted for differences in age, sex, relapses within the previous year, Expanded Disability Status Scale score, and percentage of patients with prior DMTs. Outcomes at 2 years were analyzed based on comparisons that lacked a common comparator arm. Ozanimod was associated with significantly lower ARR versus teriflunomide [ARR ratio (95% CI) 0.73 (0.62, 0.84) and DMF 0.80 (0.67, 0.97)], with no significant difference versus fingolimod or ponesimod. The proportions of patients treated with ozanimod or fingolimod had similar 3- and 6-month CDP. Compared with teriflunomide and DMF, ozanimod was associated with a significantly lower risk of 3-month CDP; 6-month CDP was comparable. Ozanimod was associated with significantly lower rates of any AE and AEs leading to discontinuation compared with the other oral DMTs evaluated. Ozanimod also had significantly lower rates of SAEs versus teriflunomide and DMF and lower rates of reported infection outcomes versus fingolimod and ponesimod. Conclusion: Compared with the other oral DMTs evaluated in MAICs, ozanimod was associated with a favorable safety profile and improved or comparable efficacy outcomes.

An indirect comparison of ozanimod vs other oral treatments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis The many treatment options available for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) make treatment decisions difficult. While direct head-to-head treatment comparisons provide useful information, these studies are not available for every pair of treatments. Indirect comparisons of published study results can help fill that evidence gap. A technique called matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) offers a statistically robust way to compare safety/efficacy outcomes from different studies by accounting for important differences across the studies. We collected data from four MAIC studies that compared 2-year treatment outcomes in patients treated with ozanimod versus those treated with fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate (DMF), or ponesimod. Each study accounted for differences in age, sex, relapses within the previous year, disability status, and previous therapy use. We found ozanimod was either better than or similar to other treatments based on the outcomes measured. The annual rate of RRMS relapse was lower for patients treated with ozanimod than for patients treated with teriflunomide or DMF and similar for patients treated with ponesimod or fingolimod. Ozanimod-treated patients saw their RRMS progress at rates similar to those treated with fingolimod at 3 and 6 months and teriflunomide and DMF at 6 months; RRMS was more likely to progress at 3 months in patients treated with teriflunomide and DMF versus those treated with ozanimod. Our analyses also found that patients treated with ozanimod had lower rates of side effects, including those serious enough to cause treatment discontinuation, compared with patients receiving other treatments. By comparing findings from existing MAIC studies, we found that patients with RRMS treated with ozanimod had fewer side effects and better or similar efficacy outcomes compared with patients who received other treatments for RRMS. These findings can potentially inform treatment decisions for patients with RRMS.

Structured Literature Review to Identify Human Papillomavirus's Natural History Parameters for Dynamic Population Models of Vaccine Impacts.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer and other diseases. Dynamic transmission models (DTMs) have been developed to evaluate the health and economic impacts of HPV vaccination. These models typically include many parameters, such as natural history of the disease, transmission, demographic, behavioral, and screening. To ensure the accuracy of DTM projections, it is important to parameterize them with the best available evidence. This study aimed to identify and synthesize data needed to parametrize DTMs on the natural history of HPV infection and related diseases. Parameters describing data of interest were grouped by their anatomical location (genital warts, recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, and cervical, anal, vaginal, vulvar, head and neck, and penile cancers), and natural history (progression, regression, death, cure, recurrence, detection), and were identified through a systematic literature review (SLR) and complementary targeted literature reviews (TLRs). The extracted data were then synthesized by pooling parameter values across publications, and summarized using the range of values across studies reporting each parameter and the median value from the most relevant study. Data were extracted and synthesized from 223 studies identified in the SLR and TLRs. Parameters frequently reported pertained to cervical cancer outcomes, while data for other anatomical locations were less available. The synthesis of the data provides a large volume of parameter values to inform HPV DTMs, such as annual progression rates from cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 to CIN 2+ (median of highest quality estimate 0.0836), CIN 2 to CIN 3+ (0.0418), carcinoma in situ (CIS) 2 to local cancer+ (0.0396), and regional to distant cancer (0.0474). Our findings suggest that while there is a large body of evidence on cervical cancer, parameter values featured substantial heterogeneity across studies, and further studies are needed to better parametrize the non-cervical components of HPV DTMs.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of fezolinetant with hormone and nonhormone therapies for treatment of vasomotor symptoms due to menopause.

IMPORTANCE: The neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant 45 mg/d significantly reduced frequency/severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) of menopause compared with placebo in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials. Its efficacy relative to available therapies is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare efficacy with fezolinetant 45 mg and hormone therapy (HT) and non-HT for VMS in postmenopausal women. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Using OvidSP, we systematically searched multiple databases for phase 3 or 4 randomized controlled trials in postmenopausal women with ≥7 moderate to severe VMS per day or ≥50 VMS per week published/presented in English through June 25, 2021. Mean change in frequency and severity of moderate to severe VMS from baseline to week 12 and proportion of women with ≥75% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 were assessed using fixed-effect models. FINDINGS: The network meta-analysis included data from the pooled phase 3 fezolinetant trials plus 23 comparator publications across the outcomes analyzed (frequency, 19 [34 regimens]; severity, 6 [7 regimens]; ≥75% response, 9 [15 regimens]). Changes in VMS frequency did not differ significantly between fezolinetant 45 mg and any of the 27 HT regimens studied. Fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of moderate to severe VMS events per day significantly more than all non-HTs evaluated: paroxetine 7.5 mg (mean difference [95% credible interval {CrI}], 1.66 [0.63-2.71]), desvenlafaxine 50 to 200 mg (mean differences [95% CrI], 1.12 [0.10-2.13] to 2.16 [0.90-3.40]), and gabapentin ER 1800 mg (mean difference [95% CrI], 1.63 [0.48-2.81]), and significantly more than placebo (mean difference, 2.78 [95% CrI], 1.93-3.62]). Tibolone 2.5 mg (the only HT regimen evaluable for severity) significantly reduced VMS severity compared with fezolinetant 45 mg. Fezolinetant 45 mg significantly reduced VMS severity compared with desvenlafaxine 50 mg and placebo and did not differ significantly from higher desvenlafaxine doses or gabapentin ER 1800 mg. For ≥75% responder rates, fezolinetant 45 mg was less effective than tibolone 2.5 mg (not available in the United States) and conjugated estrogens 0.625 mg/bazedoxifene 20 mg (available only as 0.45 mg/20 mg in the United States), did not differ significantly from other non-HT regimens studied and was superior to desvenlafaxine 50 mg and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The only HT regimens that showed significantly greater efficacy than fezolinetant 45 mg on any of the outcomes analyzed are not available in the United States. Fezolinetant 45 mg once daily was statistically significantly more effective than other non-HTs in reducing the frequency of moderate to severe VMS. RELEVANCE: These findings may inform decision making with regard to the individualized management of bothersome VMS due to menopause.

Cost Per Relapse Avoided for Ozanimod Versus Other Selected Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ozanimod compared with commonly used disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: Annualized relapse rate (ARR) and safety data were obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA) of clinical trials of RRMS treatments including ozanimod, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate. ARR-related number needed to treat (NNT) relative to placebo and annual total MS-related healthcare costs was used to estimate the incremental annual cost per relapse avoided with ozanimod vs each DMT. ARR and adverse event (AE) data were combined with drug costs and healthcare costs to manage relapses and AEs in order to estimate annual cost savings with ozanimod vs other DMTs, assuming a 1 million USD fixed treatment budget. RESULTS: Treatment with ozanimod was associated with lower incremental annual healthcare costs to avoid a relapse, ranging from $843,684 vs interferon beta-1a (30 µg; 95% confidence interval [CI] - $1,431,619, - $255,749) to $72,847 (95% CI - $153,444, $7750) vs fingolimod. Compared with all other DMTs, ozanimod was associated with overall healthcare cost savings ranging from $8257 vs interferon beta-1a (30 µg) to $2178 vs fingolimod. Compared with oral DMTs, ozanimod was associated with annual cost savings of $6199 with teriflunomide 7 mg, $4737 with teriflunomide 14 mg, $2178 with fingolimod, and $2793 with dimethyl fumarate. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ozanimod was associated with substantial reductions in annual drug costs and total MS-related healthcare costs to avoid relapses compared with other DMTs. In the fixed-budget analysis, ozanimod demonstrated a favorable cost-effective profile relative to other DMTs.

Comparative efficacy and safety of ozanimod and ponesimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod and ponesimod are sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). Given that no head-to-head trials have assessed these two treatments, we performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare efficacy and safety outcomes between ozanimod and ponesimod for MS. METHODS: A MAIC compared efficacy and safety of ozanimod and ponesimod at 2 years. Outcomes included annualized relapse rate (ARR) and percentage change from baseline in brain volume loss (BVL) as well as rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (AEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, and other safety outcomes. Individual patient-level data were obtained for ozanimod from the RADIANCE-B trial, while aggregate-level patient data were obtained for ponesimod from the OPTIMUM trial. The MAIC was not anchored owing to lack of a common comparator across the two trials. The following characteristics were matched between the trials' populations: age, sex, time since MS symptom onset, relapses in prior year, Expanded Disability Status Scale score, disease-modifying therapies received in the prior 2 years, absence of gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions, and percentage of patients from Eastern Europe. RESULTS: After matching, key baseline characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and ponesimod. Compared with ponesimod, ozanimod had a numerically lower ARR (rate ratio: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.57, 1.10]) and was associated with a significant reduction in BVL (% change difference: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.36]). Additionally, ozanimod was associated with a significantly lower risk of TEAEs (risk difference: -11.9% [95% CI: -16.8%, -7.0%]), AEs leading to discontinuation (-6.1% [95% CI: -8.9%, -3.4%]), and lymphocyte count <0.2 K/µL (-2.3% [95% CI: -4.2%, -0.5%]). There were no statistically significant differences in the other safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: The MAIC results suggest that, compared with ponesimod, ozanimod is more effective in preserving brain volume, is comparable in terms of reducing relapse rates, and has a favorable safety profile.

Development of the PREDS score to predict in-hospital mortality of patients with Ebola virus disease under advanced supportive care: Results from the EVISTA cohort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Background: As mortality remains high for patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD) despite new treatment options, the ability to level up the provided supportive care and to predict the risk of death is of major importance. This analysis of the EVISTA cohort aims to describe advanced supportive care provided to EVD patients in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and to develop a simple risk score for predicting in-hospital death, called PREDS. Methods: In this prospective cohort (NCT04815175), patients were recruited during the 10th EVD outbreak in the DRC across three Ebola Treatment Centers (ETCs). Demographic, clinical, biological, virological and treatment data were collected. We evaluated factors known to affect the risk of in-hospital death and applied univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards analyses to derive the risk score in a training dataset. We validated the score in an internal-validation dataset, applying C-statistics as a measure of discrimination. Findings: Between August 1st 2018 and December 31th 2019, 711 patients were enrolled in the study. Regarding supportive care, patients received vasopressive drug (n = 111), blood transfusion (n = 101), oxygen therapy (n = 250) and cardio-pulmonary ultrasound (n = 15). Overall, 323 (45%) patients died before day 28. Six independent prognostic factors were identified (ALT, creatinine, modified NEWS2 score, viral load, age and symptom duration). The final score range from 0 to 13 points, with a good concordance (C = 86.24%) and calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (p = 0.12). Interpretation: The implementation of advanced supportive care is possible for EVD patients in emergency settings. PREDS is a simple, accurate tool that could help in orienting early advanced care for at-risk patients after external validation. Funding: This study was funded by ALIMA.

Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb; IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world effectiveness data are needed to complement clinical trial data. This study assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab across different subgroups of adult patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), or difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based online chart review used electronic case report forms. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of EM or CM; age ≥ 18 years at the time of first fremanezumab initiation; ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment; ≥ 1 follow-up visit since first initiation; and ≥ 2 measurements of monthly migraine days (MMD; with 1 within a month before or at first initiation and ≥ 1 after first initiation). Changes in MMD and monthly headache days were assessed during the follow-up period. These endpoints were evaluated in subgroups of patients by migraine type (EM/CM) and in subgroups with DTT migraine (diagnosis of medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or prior exposure to a different CGRP pathway-targeted mAb [CGRP mAb]). RESULTS: Data were collected from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD at Month 6 were - 7.7 (77.0%) in EM patients, - 10.1 (68.7%) in CM patients, - 10.8 (80.6%) in the MO subgroup, - 9.9 (68.3%) in the MDD subgroup, - 9.5 (66.4%) in the GAD subgroup, and - 9.0 (68.7%) in the prior CGRP mAb exposure subgroup. Improvements in MDD or GAD severity were reported by 45.5% and 45.8% of patients with comorbid MDD or GAD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, fremanezumab demonstrated effectiveness for migraine regardless of migraine type or the presence of factors contributing to DTT migraine (MO, GAD, MDD, or prior exposure to a different CGRP mAb).

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in migraine patients initiating treatment in the United States: results from a retrospective chart study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults, have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world data can further support those clinical trial data and demonstrate the full clinical benefits of fremanezumab. This chart review assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab for improving clinical outcomes in adult patients with migraine treated according to real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based, online physician chart review study used electronic case report forms with US physicians. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of migraine, fremanezumab treatment initiation at ≥ 18 years of age after US Food and Drug Administration approval, ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment, and ≥ 2 assessments of monthly migraine days (MMD; 1 within 30 days before treatment initiation and ≥ 1 after initiation). Changes from baseline in MMD, monthly headache days (MHD), and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores were assessed over 6 months. These endpoints were evaluated in the overall population and subgroups divided by dosing schedule and number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures. RESULTS: This study included data from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean age at fremanezumab initiation was 39.7 years, and most patients were female (75.8%). In the overall population, mean baseline MMD and MHD were 12.7 and 14.0, respectively. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD and MHD, respectively, were - 4.6 (36.2%) and - 4.7 (33.6%) at Month 1, - 6.7 (52.8%) and - 6.8 (48.6%) at Month 3, and - 9.2 (72.4%) and - 9.8 (70.0%) at Month 6. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MIDAS and HIT-6 scores also increased over the 6-month study period, from - 6.2 (21.6%) and - 8.4 (14.0%) at Month 1 to - 18.1 (63.1%) and - 16.2 (27.0%) at Month 6, respectively. Improvements in these outcomes over 6 months were observed across all evaluated subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study demonstrated effectiveness of fremanezumab treatment for up to 6 months, irrespective of dosing regimen or number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures, reflecting ongoing, clinically meaningful improvements in patient outcomes.

Modeling the health and economic implications of adopting a 1-dose 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccination regimen in a high-income country setting: An analysis in the United Kingdom.

Although no human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is indicated for single-dose administration, some observational evidence suggests that a 1-dose regimen might reduce HPV infection risk to that achieved with 2 doses. This study estimated the potential health and economic outcomes associated with switching from a 2-dose HPV vaccination program for girls and boys aged 13-14 years to an off-label 9-valent (9vHPV), 1-dose regimen, accounting for the uncertainty of the effectiveness and durability of a single dose. A dynamic HPV transmission infection and disease model was adapted to the United Kingdom and included a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using estimated distributions for duration of protection of 1-dose and degree of protection of 1 relative to 2 doses. One-way sensitivity analyses of key inputs were performed. Outcomes included additional cancer and disease cases and the difference in net monetary benefit (NMB). The 1-dose program was predicted to result in 81,738 additional HPV-related cancer cases in males and females over 100 years compared to the 2-dose program, ranging from 36,673 to 134,347 additional cases (2.5% and 97.5% quantiles, respectively), and had a 7.8% probability of being cost-effective at the £20,000/quality-adjusted life years willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the number of additional cancer cases was sensitive to the median of the duration of protection distribution and coverage rates. The differences in NMBs were sensitive to the median of the duration of protection distribution, dose price and discount rate, but not coverage variations. Across sensitivity analyses, the probability of 1 dose being cost-effective vs 2 doses was < 50% at the standard WTP threshold. Adoption of a 1-dose 9vHPV vaccination program resulted in more vaccine-preventable HPV-related cancer and disease cases in males and females, introduced substantial uncertainty in health and economic outcomes, and had a low probability of being cost-effective compared to the 2-dose program.

Estimating the drivers of urban economic complexity and their connection to economic performance.

Estimating the capabilities, or inputs of production, that drive and constrain the economic development of urban areas has remained a challenging goal. We posit that capabilities are instantiated in the complexity and sophistication of urban activities, the know-how of individual workers, and the city-wide collective know-how. We derive a model that indicates how the value of these three quantities can be inferred from the probability that an individual in a city is employed in a given urban activity. We illustrate how to estimate empirically these variables using data on employment across industries and metropolitan statistical areas in the USA. We then show how the functional form of the probability function derived from our theory is statistically superior when compared with competing alternative models, and that it explains well-known results in the urban scaling and economic complexity literature. Finally, we show how the quantities are associated with metrics of economic performance, suggesting our theory can provide testable implications for why some cities are more prosperous than others.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescent vaccinations: projected time to reverse deficits in routine adolescent vaccination in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant reductions in the administration of routinely recommended vaccines among adolescents in the US including tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap); meningococcal (ACWY); and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. The extent to which these deficits could persist in 2021 and beyond is unclear. To address this knowledge gap, this study estimated the cumulative deficits of routine vaccine doses among US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic and estimated the time and effort needed to recover from those deficits. METHODS: Monthly reductions in Tdap, meningococcal, and HPV doses administered to US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic were quantified using MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data. The time and effort required to reverse the vaccination deficit under various catch-up scenarios were estimated. RESULTS: Annual doses administered of Tdap, meningococcus, and HPV vaccines decreased by 21.2%, 20.8%, and 24.0%, respectively, in 2020 compared to 2019. For 2021, the reduction in doses administered is projected to be 6%-21% compared to 2019 under different scenarios. The projected deficit of missed doses is expected to be cleared between winter 2023 and fall 2031. CONCLUSIONS: Administration rates of routine vaccines decreased significantly among US adolescents during COVID-19. Reversing these deficits to mitigate long-term health and economic consequences will require a sustained increase in vaccination rates over multiple years.

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: This study synthesized evidence regarding the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the United States (US). METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) identified recently published (2015-2019) observational studies of PTSD prevalence in the US via the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases. Eligible studies' most recent data were collected no earlier than 2013. Data elements extracted included study design, sample size, location, data source/year(s), study population(s), traumatic event type, prevalance estimates with corresponding look-back periods, and clinical metrics. RESULTS: Data from 38 identified articles were categorized by population, diagnostic criteria, and lookback period. Among civilians, point prevalence ranged from 8.0% to 56.7%, 1-year prevalence from 2.3% to 9.1%, and lifetime prevalence from 3.4% to 26.9%. In military populations, point prevalence ranged from 1.2% to 87.5%, 1-year prevalence from 6.7% to 50.2%, and lifetime prevalence from 7.7% to 17.0%. Within these ranges, several estimates were derived from relatively high quality data; these articles are highlighted in the review. Prevalence was elevated in subpopulations including emergency responders, refugees, American Indian/Alaska Natives, individuals with heavy substance use, individuals with a past suicide attempt, trans-masculine individuals, and women with prior military sexual trauma. Female sex, lower income, younger age, and behavioral health conditions were identified as risk factors for PTSD. CONCLUSIONS: PTSD prevalence estimates varied widely, partly due to different study designs, populations, and methodologies, and recent nationally representative estimates were lacking. Efforts to increase PTSD screening and improve disease awareness may allow for a better detection and management of PTSD.

Causal inference and adjustment for reference-arm risk in indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Aim: To illustrate that bias associated with indirect treatment comparison and network meta-analyses can be reduced by adjusting for outcomes on common reference arms. Materials & methods: Approaches to adjusting for reference-arm effects are presented within a causal inference framework. Bayesian and Frequentist approaches are applied to three real data examples. Results: Reference-arm adjustment can significantly impact estimated treatment differences, improve model fit and align indirectly estimated treatment effects with those observed in randomized trials. Reference-arm adjustment can possibly reverse the direction of estimated treatment effects. Conclusion: Accumulating theoretical and empirical evidence underscores the importance of adjusting for reference-arm outcomes in indirect treatment comparison and network meta-analyses to make full use of data and reduce the risk of bias in estimated treatments effects.

Comparative safety and efficacy of ozanimod versus fingolimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Aim: Ozanimod and fingolimod are sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor-modulating therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Patients & methods: Comparative effectiveness was assessed by matching adjusted indirect comparisons of safety and efficacy trial outcomes at first-dose cardiac monitoring, 1 year and 2 years. Results: After adjustment, baseline characteristics were similar. Ozanimod was associated with a lower risk of extended first-dose monitoring, conduction abnormalities including atrioventricular block. One-year risks of any adverse event (AE), mean lymphocyte count reductions and abnormal liver enzymes were lower with ozanimod. Two-year risks of AEs leading to discontinuation, any AEs, herpetic infections, bradycardia and abnormal liver enzymes were lower with ozanimod. Analyses of efficacy outcomes were similar. Conclusion: Ozanimod appears to have a favorable benefit-risk profile versus fingolimod.

Risk assessment and prediction of TD incidence in psychiatric patients taking concomitant antipsychotics: a retrospective data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a serious, often irreversible movement disorder caused by prolonged exposure to antipsychotics; identifying patients at risk for TD is critical to preventing it. Predictive models for the occurrence of TD can improve patient monitoring and inform implementation of counteractive interventions. This study aims to identify risk factors associated with TD and to develop a model using a retrospective data analysis to predict the incidence of TD among patients taking antipsychotic medications. METHODS: Adult patients with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder taking oral antipsychotics were identified in a Medicaid claims database (covering six US states from 1997 to 2016) and divided into cohorts based on whether they developed TD within 1 year after the first observed claim for antipsychotics. Patient characteristics between cohorts were compared, and univariate Cox analyses were used to identify potential TD risk factors. A cross-validated version of the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression method was used to develop a parsimonious multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to predict diagnosis of TD. RESULTS: A total of 189,415 eligible patients were identified. Potential TD risk factors were identified based on the cohort analysis within a sample of 151,280 patients with at least 1 year of continuous eligibility. The prediction model had a clinically meaningful concordance of 70% and was well calibrated (P = 0.32 for Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test). Age (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, P < 0.001), diagnosis of schizophrenia (HR = 1.99, P < 0.001), antipsychotic dosage (up to 100 mg/day chlorpromazine equivalent; HR = 1.65, P < 0.01), and comorbid bipolar and related disorders (HR = 1.39, P < 0.01) were significantly associated with an increased risk of TD. Other potential risk factors included history of extrapyramidal symptoms (HR = 1.35), other movement disorders (parkinsonism, HR = 1.43; bradykinesia, HR = 1.44; tremors, HR = 2.12, and myoclonus, HR = 2.33), and diabetes (HR = 1.13). A modest reduction in the risk of TD was associated with the use of second-generation antipsychotics (HR = 0.85) versus first-generation drugs. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified factors associated with development of TD among patients taking antipsychotics. The prediction model described herein can enable physicians to better monitor patients at high risk for TD and recommend appropriate treatment plans to help maintain quality of life.

Systematic literature review of clinical trials of endocrine therapies for premenopausal women with metastatic HR+ HER2- breast cancer.

Several endocrine-based therapies have recently been evaluated as treatments for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive/human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We conducted a systematic review and assessed the feasibility of an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to characterize the comparative efficacy of endocrine-based therapies in this setting. A systematic literature review (SLR) of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and key conferences was performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) satisfying the following criteria: (a) included pre/perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC, (b) included endocrine-based therapies, (c) reported efficacy, safety, or quality of life outcomes, and (d) was published in 2007 or later (when HER2 testing was standardized). The clinical and methodological similarities across trials were assessed to evaluate the feasibility of an ITC. Four RCTs (PALOMA-3, MONARCH-2, KCSG BR10-04 and MONALEESA-7) and eight regimens (palbociclib + fulvestrant + goserelin, fulvestrant + goserelin, abemaciclib + fulvestrant + gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist [GnRHa], fulvestrant + GnRHa, anastrozole + goserelin, goserelin, ribociclib + NSAI/tamoxifen + goserelin and NSAI/tamoxifen + goserelin) were selected. MONALEESA-7 was the only phase 3 trial investigating endocrine-based therapies as first-line in only pre/perimenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC; the other three trials focused on the ET-failure setting and their pre/perimenopausal populations were relatively small. ITCs were methodologically unfeasible due to critical differences in treatment settings and lack of common comparators across trials. Therefore, we were not able to characterize the relative efficacy of the different endocrine-based therapies available in the premenopausal HR+/HER2- mBC setting. This systematic review provides a comprehensive assessment of the available trial evidence on the efficacy and safety of endocrine-based therapies for premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC. Only four trials have reported relevant data in this setting, and MONALEESA-7 is currently the only trial focused on premenopausal HR+ HER2- mBC in the first-line setting.

Comparative Effectiveness of nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective Nationwide Chart Review in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are among the most common first-line (1L) therapies for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (MPAC), but real-world data on their comparative effectiveness are limited. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared the efficacy and safety of 1L nab-P + G versus FFX, overall and under specific treatment sequences. Medical records were reviewed by 215 US physicians who provided information on MPAC patients who initiated 1L therapy with nab-P + G or FFX between April 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015. Study outcomes were overall survival (OS) and tolerability. OS was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: In total, 654 medical records were reviewed, including those of 337 and 317 patients initiated on nab-P + G and FFX as 1L MPAC therapy, respectively. nab-P + G-initiated patients were older, less likely to have ECOG ≤ 1, and had more comorbidities than FFX-initiated patients. Median OS (mOS) was 12.1 and 13.8 months for nab-P + G- and FFX-initiated patients, respectively (HR = 0.99, P = 0.96). Among patients with ECOG ≤ 1, mOS was 14.1 and 13.7 months, respectively (HR = 1.00, P = 0.99). Among patients with 1L nab-P + G and FFX, 36.1% and 41.3% received 2L therapy and experienced mOS of 16.3 and 16.6 months, respectively (HR = 1.04, P = 0.76). The rates of diarrhea, fatigue, mucositis, and nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in the FFX than nab-P + G cohort. CONCLUSION: The real-world survival was similar between patients receiving 1L nab-P + G or FFX both overall and among patients who received active 2L treatments. In addition, nab-P + G was associated with significantly lower rates of common AEs compared with FFX. FUNDING: Celgene.

Progression-free survival with endocrine-based therapies following progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor among postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the comparative efficacy of currently available endocrine-based therapies (ETs) for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) after non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) progression. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Randomized clinical trials of ETs for HR+/HER2- mBC were identified via a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and key conference proceedings. All trials met the following inclusion criteria: (1) included women with HR+/HER2- mBC; (2) previous treatment with ETs or chemotherapy as first-line therapy; (3) treatment with ET as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy; (4) progression-free survival (PFS) was reported; and (5) published in 2007 (when HER2 testing became standardized) or later. Regimens were compared using pairwise hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) of PFS obtained from a Bayesian NMA. Treatments with different approved dosages were pooled into the same arm; anastrozole and exemestane were pooled as aromatase inhibitors (AIs) due to clinical similarities. RESULTS: A total of 4 trials and 6 regimens (palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI, fulvestrant + AI, fulvestrant and AI) were eligible for inclusion. Palbociclib + fulvestrant and everolimus + AI had 50% and 55% reduced hazard of progression or death vs. AI (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), respectively. Palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI and everolimus + fulvestrant had 54%, 58% and 40% reduced hazard vs. fulvestrant (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), while palbociclib + fulvestrant and everolimus + AI had 52% and 55% reduced hazard vs. fulvestrant + AI (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), respectively. CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC who had previously failed an NSAI and received palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI or everolimus + fulvestrant had longer PFS compared to those who received fulvestrant or AI alone.

Progression-free Survival With First-line Endocrine-based Therapies Among Postmenopausal Women With HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer:: A Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The comparative efficacy of endocrine-based therapies (ETs) for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is not well characterized. This network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesized available evidence on progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line ETs for postmenopausal HR+/HER2- mBC. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of first-line ETs. Pairwise hazard ratios and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were obtained via a Bayesian NMA model. Subgroup NMAs were conducted among late progressors (disease-free interval ≥12 months from completion of [neo] adjuvant therapy with letrozole or anastrozole at the time of randomization) and de novo patients, defined as patients whose initial BC diagnosis is mBC. FINDINGS: Five trials and 5 regimens (ribociclib + an aromatase inhibitor [AI] [LEE + AI], palbociclib + AI [Pal + AI], fulvestrant 250 mg + AI [Ful250 + AI], fulvestrant 500 mg [Ful500], and AI) were selected. LEE + AI, Pal + AI, Ful250 + AI, and Ful500 had significantly longer PFS versus AI (95% CrI upper-bound ≤1). LEE + AI had a 30% and 29%, and Pal + AI had a 31% and 30%, reduced hazard of progression or death versus Ful250 + AI and Ful500 (95% CrI upper-bound ≤1), respectively. The probability of being the most efficacious was 46% for LEE + AI and 54% for Pal + AI. In subgroup analyses among late progressors, LEE + AI had a 4% reduced hazard of progression or death versus Pal + AI but was not statistically significant. In the de novo analysis, Pal + AI and LEE + AI had a 29% and 40% reduced hazard of progression or death versus Ful500, respectively, but were not statistically significant. In both subgroup analyses, all therapies had significantly longer PFS compared with AI. IMPLICATIONS: Pal + AI, LEE + AI, Ful250 + AI, or Ful500 as first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- mBC had longer PFS than AI alone. Given the lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of recently approved first-line ETs for HR+/HER2- mBC, these results have important clinical implications for the treatment of HR+/HER2- mBC in the first-line setting.