Comparative tolerability of treatments for acute migraine: A network meta-analysis.

Introduction Migraine headache is a neurological disorder whose attacks are associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia. Treatments for migraine aim to either prevent attacks before they have started or relieve attacks (abort) after onset of symptoms and range from complementary therapies to pharmacological interventions. A number of treatment-related adverse events such as somnolence, fatigue, and chest discomfort have previously been reported in association with triptans. The comparative tolerability of available agents for the abortive treatment of migraine attacks has not yet been systematically reviewed and quantified. Methods We performed a systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative tolerability of treatments for migraine. The literature search targeted all randomized controlled trials evaluating oral abortive treatments for acute migraine over a range of available doses in adults. The primary outcomes of interest were any adverse event, treatment-related adverse events, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were fatigue, dizziness, chest discomfort, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting. Results Our search yielded 141 trials covering 15 distinct treatments. Of the triptans, sumatriptan, eletriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and the combination treatment of sumatriptan and naproxen were associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring compared with placebo. Of the non-triptans, only acetaminophen was associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of an adverse event occurring when compared with placebo. Overall, triptans were not associated with increased odds of serious adverse events occurring and the same was the case for non-triptans. For the secondary outcomes, with the exception of vomiting, all triptans except for almotriptan and frovatriptan were significantly associated with increased risk for all outcomes. Almotriptan was significantly associated with an increased risk of vomiting, whereas all other triptans yielded non-significant lower odds compared with placebo. Generally, the non-triptans were not associated with decreased tolerability for the secondary outcomes. Discussion In summary, triptans were associated with higher odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring when compared to placebo and non-triptans. Non-significant results for non-triptans indicate that these treatments are comparable with one another and placebo regarding tolerability outcomes.

Cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas compared with other antihyperglycaemic drugs: A Bayesian meta-analysis of survival data.

AIM: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas (SUs) vs other glucose lowering drugs in patients with T2DM (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for studies comparing SUs with placebo or other antihyperglycaemic drugs in patients with T2DM. A cloglog model was used in the Bayesian framework to obtain comparative hazard ratios (HRs) for the different interventions. For the analysis of observational data, conventional fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were used. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 82 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 26 observational studies. Meta-analyses of RCT data showed an increased risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular-related mortality for SUs compared with all other treatments combined (HR 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.44 and HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.77, respectively). The risk of myocardial infarction was significantly higher for SUs compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.14-6.57 and HR 41.80, 95% CI 1.64-360.4, respectively). The risk of stroke was significantly higher for SUs than for DPP-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, thiazolidinediones and insulin. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis showed an association between SU therapy and a higher risk of major cardiovascular disease-related events compared with other glucose lowering drugs. Results of ongoing RCTs, which should be available in 2018, will provide definitive results on the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with SUs vs other antihyperglycaemic drugs.

Treatment modifying factors of biologics for psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-regression.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore factors that modify treatment effects of non-conventional biologics versus placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-regression was conducted. The biologics included etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab, ustekinumab, tocilizumab, anakinra, abatacept, rituximab, and secukinumab. Outcomes included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 and 50, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical and Mental Component Summaries (PCS and MCS). RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were eligible for meta-regression. Treatment effects for ACR-20 at 12 weeks were higher in trials with longer disease durations (OR=2.94), and lower in trials enrolling older patients (OR=0.48), and those recently published (OR=0.49). Treatment effects for ACR-50 at 12 weeks were higher in trials with more males (OR=2.27), but lower in trials with high prior anti-TNF use (OR=0.28) and recently published trials (OR=0.37). For PASI-75, trials with more male patients (24 weeks: OR=2.56), and with higher swollen and tender joint counts (12 weeks: OR=8.33; 24 weeks: OR=14.44) showed higher treatment effects, and trials with high prior anti-TNF use had lower effects (OR=0.41). Treatment effects for SF-36 PCS at 24 weeks were higher in trials with longer psoriasis disease durations (OR=2.95) and PsA disease durations (OR=4.76), and those published earlier (OR=4.19). CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses show that differences in baseline characteristics may explain some of the differences in response to biologics versus placebo across different trials. Accounting for these factors in future studies will likely be important.

Prolactin-related adverse events and change in prolactin levels in pediatric patients given antipsychotics for schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation antipsychotics are commonly prescribed for pediatric patients with schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders despite their lack of approval for use in children. Although considered a safer alternative to first-generation antipsychotics, there is evidence to suggest that second-generation antipsychotics may be associated with some adverse events as well as an increase in prolactin levels. The purpose of this review is to examine the risk of prolactin-related adverse events in pediatric patients using antipsychotics and to quantify changes in prolactin for this population. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO databases, supplemented with review of select gray literature to identify both randomized controlled trials and observational studies on pediatric patients prescribed antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia or schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Using a narrative approach, data on adverse events were recorded and changes from baseline in prolactin were pooled, where possible, from the randomized trials. Change from baseline in prolactin was evaluated for each treatment, as well as in comparison to placebo and to other treatments. Where data was available, these changes were evaluated separately for male and female patients. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials and five observational studies, all examining the effects of second-generation antipsychotics, were selected. Literature reporting the effects of risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and paliperidone was identified, with varying doses. Prolactin-related adverse events were sparsely reported across studies. In evidence gathered from randomized controlled trials, risperidone, olanzapine, and two doses of paliperidone (3-5 mg/day and 6-12 mg/day) were associated with increased prolactin levels compared to baseline. With the exception of paliperidone, similar trends were observed in males and females, separately. The findings of the observational evidence served to both complement and run contrary to the randomized trials, with discrepancies attributed to differences in patient and treatment characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: No definitive conclusions between second-generation antipsychotic use and prolactin-related adverse events can be made based on the available literature. While some trends in prolactin level changes emerged, this was based on few trials with small sample sizes. Future investigations should emphasize reporting on treatment safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009506 .

Risk of medication overuse headache across classes of treatments for acute migraine.

BACKGROUND: The most commonly prescribed medications used to treat migraine acutely are single analgesics, ergots, opioids, and triptans. Due to varying mechanisms of action across drug classes, there is reason to believe that some classes may be less likely than others to elicit Medication Overuse Headache (MOH) than others. We therefore aimed to determine whether certain classes of acute migraine drugs are more likely to elicit MOH than others. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature was conducted to identify studies of varying designs that reported on MOH within the considered treatment classes. Only studies that reported MOH according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) were considered. Since no causal comparative design studies were identified; data from prevalence studies and surveys were retrieved. Prevalence-based relative risks between treatment classes were calculated by integrating both medication overuse and medication use from published studies. For each pair wise comparison, pooled relative risks were calculated as the inverse variance weighted average. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies informed the relative risk between treatment classes, all of which reported country-specific data. Five studies reported country-specific medication use data. For triptans versus analgesics the study relative risks generally favored triptans. The pooled relative risk was 0.65 (i.e., relative risk reduction of 35 %). For ergots versus analgesics, a similar trend was observed in favor of ergots with a relative risk of 0.41. For triptans versus ergots, the direction of effect was mixed, and the pooled relative risk was 1.07. Both triptans and ergots appeared favorable when compared to opioids, with pooled relative risks of 0.35 and 0.76, respectively. However, the evidence was limited for these comparisons. Analgesics and opioids also appeared to yield similar risk of MOH (pooled relative risk 1.09). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that in patients receiving acute migraine treatment, analgesics and opioids are associated with a higher risk of developing MOH compared with other treatments. These findings provide incentive for better monitoring of use of analgesics and opioids for treating acute migraine, and suggest possible clinical preference for use of so-called "migraine-specific" treatments, that is, triptans and ergots.

What drives the comparative effectiveness of biologics vs. methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis? Meta-regression and graphical inspection of suspected clinical factors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore which clinical factors and patient characteristics are associated with the magnitude of comparative efficacy between biologics vs. MTX in RA patients with inadequate response to MTX. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of a biologic plus MTX vs. MTX alone. We examined several clinical factors and patient characteristics potentially associated with magnitude of response, measured as ACR20 (20% improvement in ACR criteria) and ACR50 (16-26 weeks). We employed meta-regression for formal estimates and statistical significance of effect modification. We produced regression and forest plots to further inspect potential associations. RESULTS: For ACR50, a 1-year increment on the average patient disease duration was statistically significantly associated with a 16% relative increase in the pooled odds ratio (OR) estimate (P = 0.003). A 1-year increment in patient age and a 1 mg/week increment in MTX dose were marginally statistically significantly associated with a 9% (P = 0.056) and 22% (P = 0.092) relative increase in the OR. For ACR20, the average number of swollen and tender joints was marginally statistically associated with a 3% relative decrease. The associations for age and MTX dose appeared to be partly driven by significant negative associations between these two factors and the control group response. CONCLUSION: Our analyses identified key variables associated with the magnitude of comparative effects for ACR outcomes. Our findings provide valuable insights for future trial designs and systematic reviews as well as decision-making and clinical practice.

Comparative efficacy of triptans for the abortive treatment of migraine: a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is the most common neurological condition in developed countries. The abortive treatment of migraine attacks is important both for quality of life and costs associated with illness. Triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, effectively relieve the pain, disability, and associated symptoms of migraine while improving health-related quality of life. Although a number of direct head-to-head triptan comparisons have been made, data for all possible permutations are not available, and unlikely to ever be so, although in clinical practice such information would be useful. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the relative efficacy of all available triptans to abort migraine headache among patients with previous adequate response to migraine treatments. METHODS: We included only double-blinded randomized clinical trials comparing triptans to either placebo or another triptan. Our primary outcomes were pain-free response at two hours and 24-hour sustained pain-free response, and our secondary outcomes were headache response at two hours and 24-hour sustained headache response. We used Bayesian multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of seven triptans used in adult patients to abort migraine attacks. We applied a random-effects analysis with meta-regression adjusting for dose. Results are reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. RESULTS: We included data from 74 randomized clinical trials. All triptans were significantly superior to placebo for all outcomes, with the exception of naratriptan for 24-hour sustained pain-free response. Eletriptan consistently yielded the highest treatment effect estimates. For the two-hour endpoints, eletriptan was statistically significantly superior to sumatriptan, almotriptan, naratriptan, and frovatriptan for at least one of the two outcomes. Rizatriptan yielded the second highest treatment effects followed by zolmitriptan. For the 24-hour endpoints, eletriptan was statistically significantly superior to sumatriptan, rizatriptan, almotriptan, and naratriptan for at least one of the two outcomes. Frovatriptan data were not available at that endpoint. Further, the probability that eletriptan is the most likely of all triptans to produce a favorable outcome was 68% for pain-free response at two hours, and 54% for 24-hour sustained pain-free response. CONCLUSION: Triptans appear to offer differing treatment effects. In the populations studied eletriptan was most likely to produce pain-free responses that were sustained.

The impact of incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis - a case study of pharmacotherapies for moderate to severe COPD.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of using network meta-analysis (NMA) versus pair wise meta-analyses (PMA) for evidence synthesis on key outputs of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). METHODS: We conducted Bayesian NMA of randomized clinical trials providing head-to-head and placebo comparisons of the effect of pharmacotherapies on the exacerbation rate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Separately, the subset of placebo-comparison trials was used in a Bayesian PMA. The pooled rate ratios (RR) were used to populate a decision-analytic model of COPD treatment to predict 10-year outcomes. RESULTS: Efficacy estimates from the NMA and PMA were similar, but the NMA provided estimates with higher precision. This resulted in similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Probabilities of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTPs) between $25,000 and $100,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) varied considerably between the PMA- and NMA-based approaches. The largest difference in the probabilities of being cost-effective was observed at a WTP of approximately $40,000/QALY. At this threshold, with the PMA-based analysis, ICS, LAMA and placebo had a 43%, 30, and 18% probability of being the most cost-effective. By contrast, with the NMA based approach, ICS, LAMA, and placebo had a 56%, 19%, and 21% probability of being cost-effective. For larger WTP thresholds the probability of LAMA being the most cost-effective became higher than that of ICS. Under the PMA-based analyses the cross-over occurred at a WTP threshold between $60,000/QALY-$65,000/QALY, whereas under the NMA-based approach, the cross-over occurred between $85,000/QALY-$90,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Use of NMAs in CEAs is feasible and, as our case study showed, can decrease uncertainty around key cost-effectiveness measures compared with the use of PMAs. The approval process of health technologies in many jurisdictions requires estimates of comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. NMAs play an increasingly important role in providing estimates of comparative efficacy. Their use in the CEAs therefore results in methodological consistency and reduced uncertainty.

Years of life lost to incarceration: inequities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal representation in Canadian correctional institutions has increased rapidly over the past decade. We calculated "years of life lost to incarceration" for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. METHODS: Incarceration data from provincial databases were used conjointly with demographic data to estimate rates of incarceration and years of life lost to provincial incarceration in (BC) and federal incarceration, by Aboriginal status. We used the Sullivan method to estimate the years of life lost to incarceration. RESULTS: Aboriginal males can expect to spend approximately 3.6 months in federal prison and within BC spend an average of 3.2 months in custody in the provincial penal system. Aboriginal Canadians on average spend more time in custody than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. The ratio of the Aboriginal incarceration rate to the non-Aboriginal incarceration rate ranged from a low of 4.28 in Newfoundland and Labrador to a high of 25.93 in Saskatchewan. Rates of incarceration at the provincial level were highest among Aboriginals in Manitoba with an estimated rate of 1377.6 individuals in prison per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1311.8-1443.4). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate substantial differences in life years lost to incarceration for Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal Canadians. In light of on-going prison expansion in Canada, future research and policy attention should be paid to the public health consequences of incarceration, particularly among Aboriginal Canadians.

Humanistic burden of mucopolysaccharidoses: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and summarize the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) of patients undergoing treatment for mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS), a rare, hereditary lysosomal storage disorder. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify research studies that describe the humanistic burden of MPS. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and eligible conferences were screened to include applicable abstracts. RESULTS: Of 870 identified articles, 15 studies reported the HRQoL burden of patients with MPS undergoing or with a history of ERT and/or HSCT. These studies include patients of MPS I (n = 2), MPS II (n = 4), MPS IV (n = 6), MPS VI (n = 1), and subtype not mentioned (n = 2). Although the quality-of-life of MPS patients is influenced by time of diagnosis, pain, cognitive involvement, severity of disease, mobility, dependence, and time of treatment initiation, the HRQoL scores of MPS patients across all the scales were below the median reference population scores across all dimensions. This is seen in comparison to healthy participants but also in comparison to patients with other chronic illnesses. The multi-organ involvement, neurological impairment, pain, and morbidity associated with the condition not only affects activity of daily living but also affects social functioning, emotional status, employment status among adults, and school functioning among children. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review revealed the substantial humanistic burden of individuals affected by MPS as well as caregivers. Significant variation in HRQoL scores was observed, however studies indicate that the quality-of-life of MPS patients is influenced primarily by severity of disease (MPS type and phenotype), and then by time of diagnosis, pain, cognitive involvement, mobility, dependence, and time of treatment initiation. Further studies are needed to assess the global humanistic burden of MPS, particularly in MPS III, VI, VII, and IX subtypes, in adults, and for a longer follow-up period. Considering the vast array of HRQoL assessment tools available and used in this study, researchers should also consider using scales with condition-specific measures to ensure appropriate estimates of effectiveness.

Efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon alfa-2a or alfa-2b plus ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) alfa-2a and peg-IFN alfa-2b plus ribavirin (RBV) in children and adolescents with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Clinical trials examining peg-IFN alfa-2a or peg-IFN alfa-2b plus RBV among persons ages 3-18 years with HCV were included. Data were abstracted for complete early virologic response (EVR), sustained virologic response (SVR), relapse, treatment discontinuations, hematologic and dermatologic adverse events, and growth inhibition. RESULTS: Eight trials met the inclusion criteria. Results indicate that 70% of subjects (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-81%) achieved EVR, and 58% (95% CI, 53%-64%) achieved SVR. EVR and SVR were higher for those with HCV genotypes 2/3 than 1/4. Discontinuation due to adverse events and discontinuation due to viral breakthrough were each 4%, discontinuation due to a lack of response was 15%, and relapse was 7%. Anemia, neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombcytopenia were 11%, 32%, 52%, and 5%, respectively. Alopecia, injection site erythema, and pruritus were 13%, 27%, and 10%, respectively. Small growth inhibitions were observed during treatment. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that peg-IFN/RBV combination treatment is effective and safe in treating children and adolescents with HCV.

Why the findings of published multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis are different: an overview of recurrent methodological shortcomings.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of published multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analyses on biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to identify methodological issues that can explain the discrepancies in the findings of these MTCs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for MTCs of bDMARDs for RA. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we extracted a large set of methodological items. These comprised of inclusion/exclusion criteria, information sources, reported results and outcomes measures, approaches to dealing with differing response profiles to available treatments, monotherapies versus combination therapies, and potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: We identified 13 published MTCs, of which nine were published since 2009. Despite similar stated eligibility criteria and objectives across MTCs, we identified major discrepancies in the estimated treatment effects, the inclusion of trials and analytic approaches. The number of included trials was typically much smaller than the number of eligible trials at the time of publication. Three out of six MTCs including patients of differing response profiles inappropriately combined DMARD-naive and DMARD-inadequate responder patients in the analyses. Four out of eight MTCs that considered both monotherapy and combination therapy (ie, concomitant DMARD) did not adjust for the potential effect modification. Half of the identified MTCs did not explore potential sources of heterogeneity, and the explored sources varied considerably. Last, most MTCs only included one or two efficacy outcomes (eg, ACR50) and only two considered health related quality of life outcomes (eg, HAQ). CONCLUSIONS: The identified methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies most likely explain the observed discrepancies in findings across MTCs.

Descriptive review and evaluation of the functioning of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Annex 2.

BACKGROUND: The International Health Regulations (IHRs) (2005) was developed with the aim of governing international responses to public health risks and emergencies. The document requires all 194 World Health Organization (WHO) Member States to detect, assess, notify and report any potential public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) under specific timelines. Annex 2 of the IHR outlines decision-making criteria for State-appointed National Focal Points (NFP) to report potential PHEICs to the WHO, and is a critical component to the effective functioning of the IHRs. METHODS: The aim of the study was to review and evaluate the functioning of Annex 2 across WHO-reporting States Parties. Specific objectives were to ascertain NFP awareness and knowledge of Annex 2, practical use of the tool, activities taken to implement it, its perceived usefulness and user-friendliness. Qualitative telephone interviews, followed by a quantitative online survey, were administered to NFPs between October, 2009 and February, 2010. RESULTS: A total of 29 and 133 NFPs participated in the qualitative and quantitative studies, respectively. Qualitative interviews found most NFPs had a strong working knowledge of Annex 2; perceived the tool to be relevant and useful for guiding decisions; and had institutionalized management, legislation and communication systems to support it. NFPs also perceived Annex 2 as human and disease-centric, and emphasized its reduced applicability to potential PHEICs involving bioterrorist attacks, infectious diseases among animals, radio-nuclear and chemical spills, and water- or food-borne contamination. Among quantitative survey respondents, 88% reported having excellent/good knowledge of Annex 2; 77% reported always/usually using Annex 2 for assessing potential PHEICs; 76% indicated their country had some legal, regulatory or administrative provisions for using Annex 2; 95% indicated Annex 2 was always/usually useful for facilitating decisions regarding notifiability of potential PHEICs. CONCLUSION: This evaluation, including a large sample of WHO-reporting States Parties, found that the IHR's Annex 2 is perceived as useful for guiding decisions about notifiability of potential PHEICs. There is scope for the WHO to expand training and guidance on application of the IHR's Annex 2 to specific contexts. Continued monitoring and evaluation of the functioning of the IHR is imperative to promoting global health security.

Resistance to anti-PD1 therapies in patients with advanced melanoma: systematic literature review and application of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Immunotherapy Resistance Taskforce anti-PD1 resistance definitions.

Nearly half of advanced melanoma patients do not achieve a clinical response with anti-programmed cell death 1 protein (PD1) therapy (i.e. primary resistance) or initially achieve a clinical response but eventually progress during or following further treatment (i.e. secondary resistance). A consensus definition for tumor resistance to anti-PD1 monotherapy was published by Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Immunotherapy Resistance Taskforce (SITC) in 2020. A systematic literature review (SLR) of clinical trials and observational studies was conducted to characterize the proportions of advanced melanoma patients who have progressed on anti-PD1 therapies. The SLR included 55 unique studies and the SITC definition of primary resistance was applied to 37 studies that specified disease progression by best overall response. Median and range of patients with primary resistance in studies that specified first-line and second-line or higher anti-PD1 monotherapy was 35.50% (21.19-39.13%; n = 4 studies) and 41.54% (30.00-56.41%, n = 3 studies); median and range of patients with primary resistance in studies that specified first-line and second-line or higher combination therapy was 30.23% (15.79-33.33%; n = 6 studies), and 70.00% (61.10-73.33%; n = 3 studies). Primary resistance to anti-PD1 monotherapies and when in combination with ipilimumab are higher in patients receiving second-line or higher therapies, in patients with acral, mucosal, and uveal melanoma, and in patients with active brain metastases. The percentage of patients with primary resistance was generally consistent across clinical trials, with variability in resistance noted for observational studies. Limitations include applying the SITC definitions to combination therapies, where consensus definitions are not yet available. Future studies should highly consider utilizing the SITC definitions to harmonize how resistance is classified and facilitate meaningful context for clinical activity.

The Impact of Digital Therapeutics on Current Health Technology Assessment Frameworks.

Historically healthcare has been delivered offline (e.g., physician consultations, mental health counseling services). It is widely understood that healthcare lags behind other industries (e.g., financial, transportation) whom have already incorporated digital technologies in their workflow. However, this is changing with the recent emergence of digital therapeutics (DTx) helping to bring healthcare services online. To promote adoption, healthcare providers need to be educated regarding the digital therapy to allow for proper prescribing. But of equal importance is affordability and many countries rely on reimbursement support from the government and insurance agencies. Here we briefly explore how national reimbursement agencies or non-profits across six countries (Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia) handle DTx submissions and describe the potential impact of digital therapeutics on current health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks. A targeted review to identify HTA submissions and guidelines from national reimbursement agencies or non-profits was conducted. We reviewed guidelines from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the USA, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) in Canada, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (UK), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG) in Germany, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) in France, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia. Our review identified one set of guidelines developed by NICE in the UK. The guidelines by NICE outlined an evidence standards framework for digital health technologies (DHT). Depending on the organizational impact, financial commitment, and economic risk for the payer, different economic analyses are required. Economic analyses levels are separated into 3 categories, basic, low financial commitment, and high financial commitment. All economic analyses levels require a budget impact analysis. A cost-utility analysis is recommended for DHTs categorized in the high financial commitment category. Whereas, for DHTs that are in the low financial commitment category, a cost-consequence analysis is typically recommended. No HTA guidelines for DTx submissions were identified for the remaining countries (Canada, USA, Germany, France, and Australia).

Changing face of healthcare: digital therapeutics in the management of diabetes.

Diagnosis, prevention, management and treatment of acute and chronic medical conditions have improved with technological advancements in terms of scalability, efficacy, access, and personalized approach. Digital therapeutic applications (DTx) (Blue Star, Diabeo System, Livongo Diabetes Program, Tidepool etc.,) use web-based applications/cloud platforms to provide evidence-based, personalized, rapid point of care management of chronic, behavior-modifiable conditions, including diabetes mellitus (DM). DTx has improved patient compliance, therapeutic success and economic outcomes in DM management by enabling active patient engagement, lifestyle change, comprehensive medical care, and periodic monitoring of glycemic status. Addressing concerns along DTx data vulnerability, comparative efficacy with conventional treatments, ability to accommodate diverse population needs, and resolving ambiguous regulatory policies and reimbursement guidelines are critical for increasing access to DTx, and overcoming availability, accessibility, and affordability issues in the existing resource limited healthcare environment. In this commentary the authors explore the potential, prospects, and challenges of DTx in the management of Diabetes Mellitus.

Heterogeneity in renal end points of cardiovascular outcomes trials in Type 2 diabetes.

Composite renal end points and end stage renal disease (ESRD) are frequently included as prespecified secondary end points in the cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) of diabetes medications. We examined the heterogeneity in the definitions of composite renal end point and ESRD in CVOTs. Five criteria (macroalbuminuria, doubling of serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR], ESRD and renal death), were considered for the renal composite end point across the trials. Only three of the 12 trials included all five criteria, whereas the other trials included different combinations of four, three and two criteria. ESRD definition also showed considerable heterogeneity across the trials. Heterogeneity exists in the definitions of renal composite and ESRD end points in CVOTs making it challenging to assess comparative efficacy of the active treatments for reimbursement purposes.

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen for the treatment of symptomatic patients with spinal muscular atrophy type 1.

OBJECTIVE: Onasemnogene abeparvovec, a one-time intravenous gene replacement therapy, and nusinersen, an antisense oligonucleotide that requires ongoing intrathecal administration, have been evaluated as treatments for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type 1 in separate Phase III trials, but no head-to-head comparison studies have been conducted. Onasemnogene abeparvovec was compared with nusinersen using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the treatment effect of onasemnogene abeparvovec relative to nusinersen for the treatment of symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 for up to 24 months of follow-up. METHODS: In the absence of studies for both onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen with a common comparator, a Bayesian naïve indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and MAIC between onasemnogene abeparvovec and nusinersen were conducted to compare efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec with nusinersen. Outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and motor milestone achievements (independent sitting and independent walking). Relative treatment effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) and risk difference. RESULTS: Pooled and weighted patient-level data illustrated a favorable effect toward onasemnogene abeparvovec, suggesting longer EFS for patients compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.19 [95% CI: 0.07-0.54; 99% CI: 0.05-0.74]). At 24 months of follow-up, patients receiving onasemnogene abeparvovec were statistically significantly more likely to achieve the motor milestone of sitting independently compared with patients treated with nusinersen. Although statistically significant differences were not observed at 6 to 18 months between treatment options, the likelihood of sitting independently at 12 and 18 months numerically favored onasemnogene abeparvovec. A numerically greater likelihood of walking by 18 and 24 months was also observed for patients treated with onasemnogene abeparvovec compared with nusinersen. Onasemnogene abeparvovec therapy was also associated with a favorable (but statistically nonsignificant) outcome for OS and may be associated with prolonged survival compared with nusinersen (HR of onasemnogene abeparvovec vs. nusinersen: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.09-1.32; 99% CI: 0.06-2.01]). Bayesian naïve ITC results were similar to the MAIC analysis for EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievements. Small sample size limited covariate matching to baseline CHOP INTEND and nutritional support requirement, leading to wider CIs and statistically inconclusive outcomes for some of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations of the current MAIC analysis (mainly a small sample size for statistical testing, even for the pooled onasemnogene abeparvovec trials, and potential differences in prognostic and predictive factors between studies), the relative treatment effects in EFS, OS, and motor milestone achievement indicate that onasemnogene abeparvovec may offer continued benefit compared with nusinersen through 24 months of follow-up.

Quality of Life in Wilson's Disease: A Systematic Literature Review.

Background: Wilson's disease (WD) is a rare inherited genetic disorder characterized by the progressive accumulation of copper in the brain, liver, and other major organ systems. To date, there have been no comprehensive studies synthesizing evidence pertaining to the quality of life (QOL) in WD. Objective: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and synthesize the evidence on QOL in patients with WD. Methods: To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic literature review in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify observational studies and clinical trials reporting QOL outcomes among people living with WD. Results: A total of 442 publications were identified, 41 publications were eligible for full-text screening, and 7 articles, representing 7 studies, met all inclusion criteria. QOL questionnaires used across studies included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (version 1) (SF-12) (n=2), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire (version 1) (SF-36) (n=3), Global Assessment Scale (GAS) (n=1), and World Health Organization QOL brief questionnaire (WHO-QOL-BREF) (n=1). Overall, the pattern in QOL from most studies demonstrated a worse QOL in WD patients compared with the general population, a deterioration in QOL for patients presenting with neurologic symptoms, and more frequent psychiatric symptoms compared with the ones with hepatic symptoms. Discussion: Although our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of WD has advanced, and novel therapeutics are on the horizon, our understanding of how WD affects overall QOL remains limited. Evidence from this review demonstrates the substantial heterogeneity in reporting outcomes pertaining to the QOL associated with WD. These differences may be attributable to the fact that QOL is not typically assessed and the lack of a standardized method for assessing QOL in WD. Conclusion: This review demonstrates a need for more up-to-date studies with larger sample sizes to further evaluate QOL in patients with WD. The study also demonstrates the need for a WD-specific instrument to measure the QOL in WD patients.