Comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab versus other treatments in adults with resected melanoma: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary. RESULTS: Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile.

Critical Appraisal of Published Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-Analyses of Competing Interventions for Multiple Myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: In the field of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), between-trial or indirect comparisons are required to estimate relative treatment effects between competing interventions based on the available evidence. Two approaches are frequently used in RRMM: network meta-analysis (NMA) and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the relevance and credibility of published NMA and unanchored MAIC studies aiming to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatment options for RRMM. METHODS: Twelve relevant studies were identified in the published literature (n = 7) and from health technology assessment agencies (n = 5). Data from trials were extracted to identify between-trial differences that may have biased results. Credibility of the performed analyses and relevance of the research questions were critically appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist and feedback based on consultations with clinical experts. RESULTS: The identified studies concerned NMAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 7), unanchored MAICs (n = 4), or both types of analyses (n = 1). According to clinical expert consultation, the majority of the identified NMAs did not consider differences in prior therapies or treatment duration across the RCTs included in the analyses, thereby compromising the relevance. CONCLUSION: Based on the results and feedback from clinicians, the majority of NMAs did not consider prior treatment history or treatment duration, which resulted in nonrelevant comparisons. Furthermore, it may have compromised the credibility of the estimates owing to differences in effect-modifiers between the different trials. Pairwise comparisons by means of unanchored MAICs require clear justification given the reliance on non-randomized comparisons.

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.

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 .

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.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of treatments for patients with untreated multiple myeloma not eligible for stem cell transplantation.

In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), patients ineligible for front-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), melphalan and prednisone (MP) with thalidomide (MPT) or bortezomib (VMP) are standard first-line therapeutic options. Despite new treatment regimens incorporating bortezomib or lenalidomide, MM remains incurable. The FIRST study demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) until progression vs. MPT in transplant-ineligible ndMM patients. However, to date no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared Rd or MPT versus VMP. We conducted a network meta-analysis using RCTs identified through a systematic literature review to evaluate the relative efficacy of Rd versus other regimens on survival endpoints in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for ASCT. In this analysis, Rd was associated with a significant PFS and survival advantage versus other first-line treatments (VMP, MPT, MP), challenging the role of alkylators in this setting.

Cost per remission and cost per response with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the short-term costs per sustained remission and sustained response of three tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) in comparison to conventional therapy for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was developed. This included an 8-week induction period, and 22 subsequent 2-week cycles (up to 1 year). The model included three disease states: remission, response, and relapse. Costs were from a Canadian public payer perspective. Estimates for the additional cost per 1 year of sustained remission and sustained response were obtained. RESULTS: Golimumab 100 mg provided the lowest cost per additional remission ($935) and cost per additional response ($701) compared with conventional therapy. Golimumab 50 mg yielded slightly higher costs than golimumab 100 mg. Infliximab was associated with the largest additional number of estimated remissions and responses, but also higher cost at $1975 per remission and $1311 per response. Adalimumab was associated with the largest cost per remission ($7430) and cost per response ($2361). The cost per additional remission and cost per additional response associated with infliximab vs golimumab 100 mg was $14,659 and $4753, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the additional cost of 1 full year of remission and response are lowest with golimumab 100 mg, followed by golimumab 50 mg. Although infliximab has the highest efficacy, it did not exhibit the lowest cost per additional remission or response. Adalimumab produced the highest cost per additional remission and response.

Comparative efficacy of golimumab, infliximab, and adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis accounting for differences in trial designs.

AIM: To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the comparative efficacy of infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). DESIGN: A systematic literature search identified five randomized controlled trials for inclusion in the NMA. One trial assessed golimumab, two assessed infliximab and two assessed adalimumab. Outcomes included clinical response, clinical remission, mucosal healing, sustained clinical response and sustained clinical remission. Innovative methods were used to allow inclusion of the golimumab trial data given the alternative design of this trial (i.e., two-stage re-randomization). RESULTS: After induction, no statistically significant differences were found between golimumab and adalimumab or between golimumab and infliximab. Infliximab was statistically superior to adalimumab after induction for all outcomes and treatment ranking suggested infliximab as the superior treatment for induction. Golimumab and infliximab were associated with similar efficacy for achieving maintained clinical remission and sustained clinical remission, whereas adalimumab was not significantly better than placebo for sustained clinical remission. Golimumab and infliximab were also associated with similar efficacy for achieving maintained clinical response, sustained clinical response and mucosal healing. Finally, golimumab 50 and 100 mg was statistically superior to adalimumab for clinical response and sustained clinical response, and golimumab 100 mg was also statistically superior to adalimumab for mucosal healing. CONCLUSION: The results of our NMA suggest that infliximab was statistically superior to adalimumab after induction, and that golimumab was statistically superior to adalimumab for sustained outcomes. Golimumab and infliximab appeared comparable in efficacy.

Incorporating alternative design clinical trials in network meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of conventional pairwise meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions. Well-established drug class efficacies have become commonplace in many disease areas. Thus, for reasons of ethics and equipoise, it is not practical to randomize patients to placebo or older drug classes. Unique randomized clinical trial designs are an attempt to navigate these obstacles. These alternative designs, however, pose challenges when attempting to incorporate data into NMAs. Using ulcerative colitis as an example, we illustrate an example of a method where data provided by these trials are used to populate treatment networks. METHODS: We present the methods used to convert data from the PURSUIT trial into a typical parallel design for inclusion in our NMA. Data were required for three arms: golimumab 100 mg; golimumab 50 mg; and placebo. Golimumab 100 mg induction data were available; however, data regarding those individuals who were nonresponders at induction and those who were responders at maintenance were not reported, and as such, had to be imputed using data from the rerandomization phase. Golimumab 50 mg data regarding responses at week 6 were not available. Existing relationships between the available components were used to impute the expected proportions in this missing subpopulation. Data for placebo maintenance response were incomplete, as all induction nonresponders were assigned to golimumab 100 mg. Data from the PURSUIT trial were combined with ACT-1 and ULTRA-2 trial data to impute missing information. DISCUSSION: We have demonstrated methods for converting results from alternative study designs to more conventional parallel randomized clinical trials. These conversions allow for indirect treatment comparisons that are informed by a wider array of evidence, adding to the precision of estimates.