Efficacy of early use of remdesivir: a systematic review of subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A possible benefit has been suggested for early treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with remdesivir. The efficacy of this drug is controversial and could significantly influence the efficiency in healthcare systems. The objective is the methodological interpretation of subgroup analyzes according to starting of remdesivir treatment with respect to symptom onset of COVID-19. METHODS: A search in Pubmed® database was performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with subgroup analysis regarding early and late use of remdesivir were selected. All endpoints were assessed using two methodologies. First methodology considered statistical interaction, pre-specification, biological plausibility, and consistency of results. Second methodology was a validated tool with preliminary questions to discard subset analysis without relevant minimum conditions, and a checklist with recommendations for applicability. RESULTS: A total of 54 results were found and five RCTs were selected. According first methodology, consistent heterogeneity was only found in time to clinical improvement and better clinical status score at day 15 for patients with severe COVID-19 and <7 days of symptoms. About second methodology, these results about early use of remdesivir may be applied to clinical practice with caution. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a systematic search and application of an established methodology for interpretation of subgroup analysis about early use of remdesivir. Results in severe COVID-19 suggested that early use of remdesivir provides a greater benefit in <7 days of symptoms for time to clinical improvement and better clinical status score at day 15. Future studies could use 7-day cut-off of symptoms to evaluate remdesivir.

Safety considerations during prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), through a review of systematic reviews.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used drugs worldwide. This makes it necessary to carry out a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence on the safe and adequate prescription of NSAIDs in patients with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, heart failure or liver cirrhosis and in general population. For this, a review of systematic reviews was carried out. Data extraction and analysis were performed independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis of the results was carried out. The use of NSAIDs is associated with a significantly higher probability of hepatotoxicity and kidney damage, as well as increased risk of exacerbation of heart failure. Taking into account the increased cardiovascular, liver and kidney risk, the prescription of NSAIDs should be carried out with caution, considering the treatment duration and the patient's situation. For this reason, patients should be informed about their possible health consequences as well as ensuring adequate monitoring of them.

New graphic AUC-based method to estimate overall survival benefit: pomalidomide reanalysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Difference in median survival is an erratic measure and sometimes does not provide a good assessment of survival benefit. The aim of this study was to reanalyse the overall survival benefit of pomalidomide from pivotal clinical trial using a new area under curve (AUC)-based method. COMMENT: In the pivotal trial, pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone showed a significant survival benefit over high-dose dexamethasone, with a difference between medians of 4.6 months. The new AUC method applied to the survival curves, obtained an overall survival benefit of 2.6 months for the pomalidomide treatment. This average difference in OS was calculated for the 61.5% of patients for whom the time to event is reliable enough. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This 2-month differential would have major clinical and pharmacoeconomic implications, on both cost-effectiveness studies and on the willingness of the healthcare systems to pay for this treatment.

A checklist for critical appraisal of indirect comparisons.

The aim of this study was to develop a user-friendly checklist for critical appraisal of indirect comparisons of drugs, considering clinical, methodological/statistical and quality aspects, mainly to be applied in drug evaluation in the decision-making context. After conducting a review of the literature, we used group consensus to establish the key points of the checklist, focusing mainly on indirect comparisons, but including topics related to network meta-analysis or multiple treatment comparisons. The coordinating group elaborated the first draft, which was reviewed by external experts, re-evaluated by the coordinating group and finally assessed by 23 drug evaluation experts trained in indirect comparisons, who applied the checklist to one study. The Kappa index of agreement was calculated and the final checklist was developed by group consensus including the external experts. The checklist has two parts. The first consists of three eliminatory key questions while the second includes 17 items: 5 regarding quality, 5 regarding clinical issues and 7 dealing with methodology/statistics. The median kappa values of the 23 evaluations were 0.83 (range 0.67-0.93), 0.61 (0.54-0.91) and 0.36 (0.22-1) with regard to quality, clinical aspects and methodology/statistics, respectively. A structured checklist was developed to facilitate critical appraisal of key issues in indirect comparisons, including comments for assessing the consequences of its application to drug evaluation in the decision-making context. Agreement between reviewers in clinical and quality items was good, but weaker in methodology/statistics ones.

Direct and indirect comparison of the efficacy and safety of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and golimumab in psoriatic arthritis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Psoriatic arthritis is an autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation of the skin and joints. Anti-TNF drugs reduce the severity of the disease in the long term. This study compares the efficacy and safety of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and golimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: Direct comparison was based on a literature search of drug comparison studies, whereas indirect treatment comparison was based on phase III clinical trials with biological agents, involving similar populations and durations, and with the same outcome. ACR50 was taken as primary outcome for comparison, whereas ACR20 and ACR70 were used as secondary outcomes. Indirect comparisons were made using infliximab as the reference drug and the Bucher method. In calculating δ (the maximum acceptable difference as a clinical criterion of equivalence), use was made of half of the absolute risk reduction obtained in the meta-analysis of the clinical trials included in the indirect comparison (ARR 32%; δ: 16%). The four anti-TNF drugs were also compared in relation to the secondary outcomes and adverse effects. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Reported direct and indirect comparisons of the four drugs did not include golimumab, and did not yield conclusive results. Four clinical trials - one for each drug studied - were identified. The estimated differences for the primary outcome, ACR50, between infliximab and the other drugs were adalimumab (ARR 4%, 95% CI -9·5 to 17·5), etanercept (ARR 4%, 95% CI -10·5 to 18·5) and golimumab (ARR 9%, 95% CI -5·4 to 23·4). Likewise, there were no relevant differences between the drugs in relation to the secondary efficacy outcomes, except for etanercept, which was less effective in ACR70 response. For adverse reactions, there were also no significant differences except for injection site, reactions which were more frequent with etanercept, with a mean difference of 26% relative to infliximab. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in ACR50 responses to the four drugs after 24 weeks. Injection-site reactions were more common with etanercept, but this was insufficient to invalidate the inference that clinically the four drugs can be regarded as clinically equivalent for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.