Design of paediatric trials with benefit-risk endpoints using a composite score of adverse events of interest (AEI) and win-statistics.

A fundamental problem in the regulatory evaluation of a therapy is assessing whether the benefit outweighs the associated risks. This work proposes designing a trial that assesses a composite endpoint consisting of benefit and risk, hence, making the core of the design of the study, to assess benefit and risk. The proposed benefit risk measure consists of efficacy measure(s) and a risk measure that is based on a composite score obtained from pre-defined adverse events of interest (AEI). This composite score incorporates full aspects of adverse events of interest (i.e. the incidence, severity, and duration of the events). We call this newly proposed score the AEI composite score. After specifying the priorities between the components of the composite endpoint, a win-statistic (i.e. win ratio, win odds, or net benefit) is used to assess the difference between treatments in this composite endpoint. The power and sample size requirements of such a trial design are explored via simulation. Finally, using Dupixent published adult study results, we show how we can design a paediatric trial where the primary outcome is a composite of prioritized outcomes consisting of efficacy endpoints and the AEI composite score endpoint. The resulting trial design can potentially substantially reduce sample size compared to a trial designed to assess the co-primary efficacy endpoints, therefore it may address the challenge of slow enrollment and patient availability for paediatric studies.

A Bayesian approach for individual-level drug benefit-risk assessment.

In existing benefit-risk assessment (BRA) methods, benefit and risk criteria are usually identified and defined separately based on aggregated clinical data and therefore ignore the individual-level differences as well as the association among the criteria. We proposed a Bayesian multicriteria decision-making method for BRA of drugs using individual-level data. We used a multidimensional latent trait model to account for the heterogeneity of treatment effects with latent variables introducing the dependencies among outcomes. We then applied the stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis approach for BRA incorporating imprecise and heterogeneous patient preference information. We adopted an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm when implementing the proposed method. We applied our method to a case study to illustrate how individual-level benefit-risk profiles could inform decision-making.

Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit-risk assessments of medicinal products.

BACKGROUND: The PROTECT Benefit-Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit-risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. METHODS: A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit-risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. RESULTS: Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit-risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. CONCLUSION: We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit-risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience-visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit-risk analysis information.

Recommendations for benefit-risk assessment methodologies and visual representations.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit-risk assessment. METHODS: Eight case studies based on the benefit-risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit-risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies. RESULTS: A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit-risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit-risk assessment from multiple perspectives.

Structured Benefit-risk assessment: a review of key publications and initiatives on frameworks and methodologies.

Introduction The conduct of structured benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of pharmaceutical products is a key area of interest for regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. However, the acceptance of a standardized approach and implementation are slow. Statisticians play major roles in these organizations, and have a great opportunity to be involved and drive the shaping of future BRA. Method We performed a literature search of recent reviews and initiatives assessing BRA methodologies, and grouped them to assist those new to BRA in learning, understanding, and choosing methodologies. We summarized the key points and discussed the impact of this emerging field on various stakeholders, particularly statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry. Results We provide introductory, essential, special interest, and further information and initiatives materials that direct readers to the most relevant materials, which were published between 2000 and 2013. Based on recommendations in these materials we supply a toolkit of advocated BRA methodologies. Discussion Despite initiatives promoting these methodologies, there are still barriers, one of which being the lack of a consensus on the most appropriate methodologies among stakeholders. However, this opens up opportunities, for statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry especially, to champion appropriate BRA methodology use throughout the pharmaceutical product lifecycle. Conclusions This article may serve as a starting point for discussions and to reach a mutual consensus for methodology selection in a particular situation. Regulators and pharmaceutical industry should continue to collaborate to develop and take forward BRA methodologies, and by clear communication develop a mutual understanding of the key issues. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Bayesian approach to probabilistic sensitivity analysis in structured benefit-risk assessment.

Quantitative decision models such as multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can be used in benefit-risk assessment to formalize trade-offs between benefits and risks, providing transparency to the assessment process. There is however no well-established method for propagating uncertainty of treatment effects data through such models to provide a sense of the variability of the benefit-risk balance. Here, we present a Bayesian statistical method that directly models the outcomes observed in randomized placebo-controlled trials and uses this to infer indirect comparisons between competing active treatments. The resulting treatment effects estimates are suitable for use within the MCDA setting, and it is possible to derive the distribution of the overall benefit-risk balance through Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. The method is illustrated using a case study of natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

A case study using the PrOACT-URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment.

While benefit-risk assessment is a key component of the drug development and maintenance process, it is often described in a narrative. In contrast, structured benefit-risk assessment builds on established ideas from decision analysis and comprises a qualitative framework and quantitative methodology. We compare two such frameworks, applying multi-criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) within the PrOACT-URL framework and weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB), within the BRAT framework. These are applied to a case study of natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. We focus on the practical considerations of applying these methods and give recommendations for visual presentation of results. In the case study, we found structured benefit-risk analysis to be a useful tool for structuring, quantifying, and communicating the relative benefit and safety profiles of drugs in a transparent, rational and consistent way. The two frameworks were similar. MCDA is a generic and flexible methodology that can be used to perform a structured benefit-risk in any common context. wNCB is a special case of MCDA and is shown to be equivalent to an extension of the number needed to treat (NNT) principle. It is simpler to apply and understand than MCDA and can be applied when all outcomes are measured on a binary scale.

Effects of targeted delivery of propionate to the human colon on appetite regulation, body weight maintenance and adiposity in overweight adults.

OBJECTIVE: The colonic microbiota ferment dietary fibres, producing short chain fatty acids. Recent evidence suggests that the short chain fatty acid propionate may play an important role in appetite regulation. We hypothesised that colonic delivery of propionate would increase peptide YY (PYY) and glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) secretion in humans, and reduce energy intake and weight gain in overweight adults. DESIGN: To investigate whether propionate promotes PYY and GLP-1 secretion, a primary cultured human colonic cell model was developed. To deliver propionate specifically to the colon, we developed a novel inulin-propionate ester. An acute randomised, controlled cross-over study was used to assess the effects of this inulin-propionate ester on energy intake and plasma PYY and GLP-1 concentrations. The long-term effects of inulin-propionate ester on weight gain were subsequently assessed in a randomised, controlled 24-week study involving 60 overweight adults. RESULTS: Propionate significantly stimulated the release of PYY and GLP-1 from human colonic cells. Acute ingestion of 10 g inulin-propionate ester significantly increased postprandial plasma PYY and GLP-1 and reduced energy intake. Over 24 weeks, 10 g/day inulin-propionate ester supplementation significantly reduced weight gain, intra-abdominal adipose tissue distribution, intrahepatocellular lipid content and prevented the deterioration in insulin sensitivity observed in the inulin-control group. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate for the first time that increasing colonic propionate prevents weight gain in overweight adult humans. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00750438.

Prokinetics prescribing in paediatrics: evidence on cisapride, domperidone, and metoclopramide.

OBJECTIVES: Domperidone and metoclopramide are prokinetics commonly prescribed off-label to infants and younger children in an attempt to treat gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms. Another prokinetic drug, cisapride, was used but withdrawn in 2000 in the United Kingdom because of serious arrhythmic adverse events. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issued safety warnings for domperidone in May 2012 and restricted its indications. We report here national primary care prescribing trends and safety signals of these drugs in children. METHODS: We used data from the General Practice Research Database between 1990 and 2006 for children <18 years. Descriptive statistics and Poisson regressions were performed to characterise prescribing trends. We examined safety signals in nested case-control studies. RESULTS: The proportion of children <2 years old being prescribed one of the medications doubled during the study period. Prescriptions of domperidone increased 10-fold, mainly following the withdrawal of cisapride in 2000. Prescriptions of metoclopramide did not change significantly. Despite the increase in prescriptions of domperidone, no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These data showed dramatic changes in prescribing of cisapride and domperidone despite the lack of good-quality supporting evidence. It is possible that these prescribing trends were influenced by published guidelines. Even if produced without robust efficacy and safety evidence, published guidelines can influence clinicians and consequently affect prescribing. Therefore, improving the evidence base on prokinetics to inform future guidelines is vital. The lack of new safety signals during this period would support the development of suitable powered clinical studies.

Emergency department treatments and physiotherapy for acute whiplash: a pragmatic, two-step, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effectiveness of treatments for acute whiplash injury. We aimed to estimate whether training of staff in emergency departments to provide active management consultations was more effective than usual consultations (Step 1) and to estimate whether a physiotherapy package was more effective than one additional physiotherapy advice session in patients with persisting symptoms (Step 2). METHODS: Step 1 was a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of 12 NHS Trust hospitals including 15 emergency departments who treated patients with acute whiplash associated disorder of grades I-III. The hospitals were randomised by clusters to either active management or usual care consultations. In Step 2, we used a nested individually randomised trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a package of up to six physiotherapy sessions or a single advice session. Randomisation in Step 2 was stratified by centre. Investigator-masked outcomes were obtained at 4, 8, and 12 months. Masking of clinicians and patients was not possible in all steps of the trial. The primary outcome was the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Analysis was intention to treat, and included an economic evaluation. The study is registered ISRCTN33302125. FINDINGS: Recruitment ran from Dec 5, 2005 to Nov 30, 2007. Follow-up was completed on Dec 19, 2008. In Step 1, 12 NHS Trusts were randomised, and 3851 of 6952 eligible patients agreed to participate (1598 patients were assigned to usual care and 2253 patients were assigned to active management). 2704 (70%) of 3851 patients provided data at 12 months. NDI score did not differ between active management and usual care consultations (difference at 12 months 0·5, 95% CI -1·5 to 2·5). In Step 2, 599 patients were randomly assigned to receive either advice (299 patients) or a physiotherapy package (300 patients). 479 (80%) patients provided data at 12 months. The physiotherapy package at 4 months showed a modest benefit compared to advice (NDI difference -3·7, -6·1 to -1·3), but not at 8 or 12 months. Active management consultations and the physiotherapy package were more expensive than usual care and single advice session. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths were noted. INTERPRETATION: Provision of active management consultation did not show additional benefit. A package of physiotherapy gave a modest acceleration to early recovery of persisting symptoms but was not cost effective from a UK NHS perspective. Usual consultations in emergency departments and a single physiotherapy advice session for persistent symptoms are recommended. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.

BACKGROUND: The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. METHODS: A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. RESULTS: We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.

Benefit-risk assessment in a post-market setting: a case study integrating real-life experience into benefit-risk methodology.

PURPOSE: Difficulties may be encountered when undertaking a benefit-risk assessment for an older product with well-established use but with a benefit-risk balance that may have changed over time. This case study investigates this specific situation by applying a formal benefit-risk framework to assess the benefit-risk balance of warfarin for primary prevention of patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We used the qualitative framework BRAT as the starting point of the benefit-risk analysis, bringing together the relevant available evidence. We explored the use of a quantitative method (stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis) to demonstrate how uncertainties and preferences on multiple criteria can be integrated into a single measure to reduce cognitive burden and increase transparency in decision making. RESULTS: Our benefit-risk model found that warfarin is favourable compared with placebo for the primary prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. This favourable benefit-risk balance is fairly robust to differences in preferences. The probability of a favourable benefit-risk for warfarin against placebo is high (0.99) in our model despite the high uncertainty of randomised clinical trial data. In this case study, we identified major challenges related to the identification of relevant benefit-risk criteria and taking into account the diversity and quality of evidence available to inform the benefit-risk assessment. CONCLUSION: The main challenges in applying formal methods for medical benefit-risk assessment for a marketed drug are related to outcome definitions and data availability. Data exist from many different sources (both randomised clinical trials and observational studies), and the variability in the studies is large.

Quantifying the benefit-risk trade-off for individual patients in a clinical trial: principles and antithrombotic case study.

BACKGROUND: A treatment's overall favorable benefit-risk profile does not imply that every individual patient will benefit from the treatment. OBJECTIVES: To describe a statistical methodology for quantifying the benefit-risk trade-off in individual patients. METHODS: The method requires a large randomized controlled trial containing a primary efficacy outcome and a primary safety outcome, for instance, the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 50 placebo-controlled trial of vorapaxar in 17 779 patients following myocardial infarction. Multivariate regression models predict each individual patient's risk of ischemic events (benefit) and major bleeding events (harm) based on their profile. Hence, each patient's predicted benefit from vorapaxar (reduction in ischemic events) and predicted risk (increase in bleeding events) were estimated. The relative importance of ischemic and bleeding events based on links to all-cause mortality was quantified, although the limitations of such weightings are noted. RESULTS: Overall results demonstrated both clear benefit and harm from vorapaxar. Substantial interindividual variation in both benefit and risk facilitated distinguishing patients with a favorable benefit-risk trade-off from those who did not. Such findings were applied to recommend vorapaxar in as many as 98.3% of patients in which a favorable mortality-weighted benefit-risk trade-off was present, in 77.2% of patients with ischemic benefit 20% greater than bleeding risk, or in as few as 45.5% of patients if an annual decrease in ischemic risk of ≥0.5% was also required. CONCLUSION: While overall randomized controlled trials of treatment benefit vs risk are valuable, models determining each individual patient's estimated absolute benefit and risk provide more useful insight regarding patient-specific benefit-risk trade-offs to better enable personalized therapeutic decision-making.

Changes in physiological, functional and structural markers of cystic fibrosis lung disease with treatment of a pulmonary exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in cystic fibrosis (CF) have been hindered by the paucity of well characterised and clinically relevant outcome measures. AIM: To evaluate a range of conventional and novel biomarkers of CF lung disease in a multicentre setting as a contributing study in selecting outcome assays for a clinical trial of CFTR gene therapy. METHODS: A multicentre observational study of adult and paediatric patients with CF (>10 years) treated for a physician-defined exacerbation of CF pulmonary symptoms. Measurements were performed at commencement and immediately after a course of intravenous antibiotics. Disease activity was assessed using 46 assays across five key domains: symptoms, lung physiology, structural changes on CT, pulmonary and systemic inflammatory markers. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were seen in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (p<0.001, n=32), lung clearance index (p<0.01, n=32), symptoms (p<0.0001, n=37), CT scores for airway wall thickness (p<0.01, n=31), air trapping (p<0.01, n=30) and large mucus plugs (p=0.0001, n=31), serum C-reactive protein (p<0.0001, n=34), serum interleukin-6 (p<0.0001, n=33) and serum calprotectin (p<0.0001, n=31). DISCUSSION: We identify the key biomarkers of inflammation, imaging and physiology that alter alongside symptomatic improvement following treatment of an acute CF exacerbation. These data, in parallel with our study of biomarkers in patients with stable CF, provide important guidance in choosing optimal biomarkers for novel therapies. Further, they highlight that such acute therapy predominantly improves large airway parameters and systemic inflammation, but has less effect on airway inflammation.

Regulatory benefit-risk assessment of oncology drugs: A systematic review of FDA and EMA approvals.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA have policy goals of strengthening benefit-risk (B-R) capabilities; but how this has been translating into regulatory practice is unclear. A systematic review of oncology drug approvals between 2015 and 2020 was conducted with approvals identified through review of FDA and EMA annual reports, with extraction of information on submission, clinical program and B-R assessment from publicly available review documents. Data were extracted from 236 reviews (EMA: 66 new submissions, 100 label extensions; FDA: 70 new submissions). The standard of evidence for B-R assessments seems to have diversified over time; yet, despite policy targets to extend their use, these assessments rarely include patient experience or real-world data.

An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) between a 15-valent (V114) and a 20-valent (PCV20) pneumococcal conjugate vaccine among healthy infants.

OBJECTIVES: Immunogenicity between 15-valent V114 (PCV15) and 20-valent PCV20 pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in healthy infants is compared in an indirect treatment comparison and matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Hypotheses: immunogenicity of V114 is non-inferior to PCV20 for all PCV13 serotypes, and superior to PCV20 for serotype 3 based on lower bound margins. METHODS: Two phase 3 pivotal studies on 3 + 1 pediatric vaccination schedule at age 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months compared V114 (N = 858) to PCV13 (N = 856) and PCV20 (N = 1001) to PCV13 (N = 987). Infant's age and race in V114 study were matched to those in PCV20 study. Primary endpoints were serotype-specific Immunoglobulin G (IgG) response rate difference (RRD) 30 days post-dose (PD)3; IgG geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios 30 days PD3 and PD4. RESULTS: V114 was non-inferior (marginRRD>-10%-point; marginGMCratio >0.5) to PCV20 (p-value <0.001) for all endpoints. V114 was superior (marginRRD >0%-point; marginGMCratio >1.2) to PCV20 (p-value <0.001) for serotype 3: RRD was 34.5% (95%CI 27.9%-41.1%) PD3, and IgG GMC ratios were 2.39 (95%CI 2.12-2.68) PD3 and 2.15 (95%CI 1.90-2.41) PD4. CONCLUSION: Immune response to V114 administered in a 3 + 1 schedule in healthy infants was considered non-inferior to PCV20 for all 13 PCV13 serotypes and superior for serotype 3 PD3 and PD4. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT03893448, NCT04382326.

Pharmacokinetics, adverse effects and tolerability of a novel analogue of human pancreatic polypeptide, PP 1420.

AIMS: The objectives of this phase 1 study were to confirm the tolerability of single ascending subcutaneous doses of PP 1420 in healthy subjects, to assess its adverse effects and to investigate the drug's pharmacokinetics and dose proportionality. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. There were three dosing periods. Each subject (n= 12) was randomized to receive one dose of placebo and two ascending doses of PP 1420, given as a subcutaneous injection. Blood samples were taken over 24 h to assess pharmacokinetics. Standard safety and laboratory data were collected. The primary endpoint was the tolerability of PP 1420. The secondary endpoint was exposure to PP 1420 as assessed by C(max) and AUC(0,∞). RESULTS: PP 1420 was well tolerated by all subjects with no serious adverse effects. Following single subcutaneous doses of PP 1420 at 2, 4 and 8 mg to male subjects, C(max) was reached at a median t(max) of approximately 1 h post dose (range 0.32-2.00 h). Thereafter, plasma concentrations of PP 1420 declined with geometric mean apparent terminal elimination t(1/2) ranging from 2.42-2.61 h (range 1.64-3.95 h) across all dose levels. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous PP 1420 was well tolerated in healthy human subjects at single doses between 2-8 mg, with no tolerability issues arising. Where observed, adverse events were not serious, and there was no evidence of a dose-relationship to frequency of adverse events. The results therefore support the conduct of clinical trials to investigate efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics during repeated dosing.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of pneumococcal vaccines V114 and PCV20.

BACKGROUND: V114 (15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV15]) and a 20-valent PCV (PCV20) are approved for adults (≥18 years) in the United States. We present methodologies to indirectly compare immune responses to V114 versus PCV20. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Indirect treatment comparison and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) were performed to estimate opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of V114/PCV20 at 30 days post-vaccination with PCV13 as common comparator for 13 serotypes (STs) shared with a 13-valent PCV (PCV13) among pneumococcal vaccine-naïve adults aged ≥60 years. Data from three V114 studies were pooled (V114, N = 2,196; PCV13, N = 843). In the MAIC analysis, data were reweighted, matching participant age and sex in NCT03760146 (PCV20, N = 1,507; PCV13, N = 1,490). RESULTS: The lower bound of V114/PCV20 OPA GMT ratio for all PCV13 STs is greater than the prespecified  0.5 non-inferiority margin and those for five PCV13 STs (3, 6A, 6B, 18C, and 23F) are greater than the prespecified 1.2 superiority margin. V114 was associated with 77% greater OPA GMT for ST3 versus PCV20. CONCLUSION: V114 was non-inferior to PCV20 for all PCV13 STs and statistically superior for five PCV13 STs.

Cumulative flying time and risk of venous thromboembolism.

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with cumulative flying time remains uncertain. In a case-control study in general practices throughout the UK, participants comprised 550 VTE cases identified from practice records and 1971 age- and gender-matched controls. Participants returned identical questionnaires asking for information including air travel details. Compared to not flying, cumulative flying time >12 h within the previous 4 weeks was associated with a threefold increase in the risk of VTE [odds ratio (OR) 2·75, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1·44-5·28]. Those who had flown >4 h in a single leg in the previous 4 weeks had twice the risk of VTE (OR 2·20, 95% CI, 1·29-3·73). These risks were no longer evident by 12 weeks and were similar to those of day-case or minor surgery (OR 5·35, 95% CI, 2·15-13·33). Equivalent risks for moderate and high-risk surgery were over 30-fold (OR 36·57, 95% CI, 13·05-102·52) and 140-fold (OR 141·71, 95% CI, 19·38-1036·01) respectively. The temporary nature of the association of cumulative and long-haul air travel with VTE suggests a causal relationship. The risks of VTE in those with a higher baseline risk due to surgery, previous VTE or obesity are further increased by air travel.