Pharmacological Acromegaly Treatment: Cost-Utility and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing drug strategies involving octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, and pegvisomant for the treatment of patients with acromegaly who have failed surgery, from a Brazilian public payer perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort Markov model was developed. One-year cycles were employed. The patients started at 45 years of age and were followed lifelong. Costs, efficacy, and quality of life parameters were retrieved from the literature. A discount rate (5%) was applied to both costs and efficacy. The results were reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated when applicable. Scenario analyses considered alternative dosages, discount rate, tax exemption, and continued use of treatment despite lack of response. Value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to explore uncertainty and to estimate the costs to be spent in future research. RESULTS: Only lanreotide showed an ICER reasonable for having its use considered in clinical practice (R$ 112,138/US$ 28,389 per QALY compared to no treatment). Scenario analyses corroborated the base-case result. VOI analysis showed that much uncertainty surrounds the parameters, and future clinical research should cost less than R$ 43,230,000/US$ 10,944,304 per year. VOI also showed that almost all uncertainty that precludes an optimal strategy choice involves quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: With current information, the only strategy that can be considered cost-effective in Brazil is lanreotide treatment. No second-line treatment is recommended. Significant uncertainty of parameters impairs optimal decision-making, and this conclusion can be generalized to other countries. Future research should focus on acquiring utility data.

Efficacy and safety of oral phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction: a network meta-analysis and multicriteria decision analysis.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess the benefit-risk ratio on the efficacy and safety of all phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) in men with erectile dysfunction. METHODS: A systematic review with network meta-analysis, surface under the cumulative ranking analysis and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analyses were performed. Searches were conducted in Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science without limits for time-frame or language. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy or safety of any PDE5i compared to a placebo or to other PDE5i in males with erectile disfunction were included. RESULTS: Overall, 184 articles representing 179 randomized controlled trials (50,620 patients) were included. All PDE5i were significantly more efficient than placebo. Sildenafil 25 mg was statistically superior to all interventions in enhancing IIEF (with a 98% probability of being the most effective treatment), followed by sildenafil 50 mg (80% of probability). Taladafil 10 mg and 20 mg also presented good profiles (73% and 76%, respectively). Avanafil and lodenafil were less effective interventions. Mirodenafil 150 mg was the treatment that caused more adverse events, especially flushing and headaches. Sildenafil 100 mg was more related to visual disorders, while vardenafil and udenafil were more prone to cause nasal congestion. CONCLUSION: Sildenafil at low doses and tadalafil should be the first therapeutic options. Avanafil, lodenafil and mirodenafil use are hardly justified given the lack of expressive efficacy or high rates of adverse events.

Safety outcomes of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies have reported adverse events that preclude the use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the long term or in specific populations, however, little is known about the relationship between the use of DMTs and frequency of undesirable events. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMAs) of RCTs and observational studies to synthesise the evidence on the safety of all available DMTs for patients with RRMS. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and a manual search were performed. Bayesian NMAs of safety outcomes reported in RCTs and observational studies assessing DMTs as monotherapies were conducted. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Considering all studies, 368 and 149 different safety outcomes were reported for at least one study and two studies, respectively. Considering clinical trials, 22 NMAs were conducted for 16 outcomes. Regarding geometry metrics, the median number of studies, DMTs, common comparator, strong edge, and patients were 5 (IQR 5-9), 5 (IQR 4-8), 44%, 33%, and 3998 (IQR 3380-6761). In summary, most comparisons showed similar risk of safety events for DMTs and placebo for all outcomes. Considering cohort studies, only three meta-analyses were conducted. CONCLUSION: Safety outcomes are poorly reported in primary studies of DMTs in RRMS, precluding the conduction of robust meta-analyses. Therefore, the current available data on safety of these drugs is not contributing to regulatory and clinical decision making, with adverse event reports underbalanced compared to efficacy outcomes.

Methodological quality assessment of network meta-analysis of drug interventions: implications from a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the methodological quality of network meta-analyses (NMAs) and their compliance with reporting guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review of NMAs comparing any pharmacological interventions was performed (searches in Medline and Scopus). The characteristics of NMAs were collected by two independent reviewers. We applied R-AMSTAR to all NMAs, generating a methodological quality score that could range from 11 to 44 points. PRISMA and PRISMA-NMA reporting checklists were converted into quantitative scores (maximum values of 27 and 32 points). To normalize the values between these two checklists, a third score (PRISMA-SCORE) of 0-1 was created. The correlation of the scores with NMA publication year, journal impact factor and most productive countries were calculated using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: We identified 477 NMAs. Only 36.1% of studies reported having followed PRISMA statements. The medians of R-AMSTAR, PRISMA and PRISMA-NMA scores were 28 (IQR 25-31), 21 (IQR 19-23) and 23 (IQR 19-26), respectively. Several problems were noted in NMAs (e.g. lack of study protocol, issues in literature searches, lack of raw data). NMAs from the most productive countries (USA and China) have similar methodological quality. Correlation analyses between R-AMSTAR and normalized PRISMA-SCORE revealed a strong positive correlation (Spearman's ρ = 0.776; P <0.001). A weak but positive correlation was found for PRISMA-SCORE and journal impact factor (0.193; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The important growth of NMA publication rate during the past 5 years is not associated with better methodological and reporting quality. Editors, peer reviewers, researchers and funding agencies should ensure that methodological and reporting standards are met before publication.

Comparative efficacy and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacotherapy of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of all TKIs in CML patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib, bosutinib, radotinib and ponatinib. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SciELo (March 2018). The NMAs were built for six outcomes at 12 months: complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), major cytogenetic response (MCyR), deep molecular response, major molecular response (MMR), complete haematologic response and incidence of serious adverse events. We conducted rank order and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included (n = 5079 patients). Statistical differences were observed for some comparisons in all outcomes. Imatinib 400 mg was considered the safest drug (SUCRA values of 10.3%) but presented low efficacy. Overall, nilotinib 600 mg was superior to the other TKI in efficacy (SUCRA values of 61.1% for CCyR, 81.0% for MMR, 90.0% for MCyR); however, no data on its safety profile at 12 months were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that nilotinib should be upgraded to first-line therapy for CML, although further cost-effectiveness analyses, including the new TKI (i.e., ponatinib, radotinib), are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of acromegaly treatments: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Acromegaly is a rare disease that results in the enlargement of body extremities and in organomegaly. Treatments include surgery, drugs, and radiotherapy, which are all onerous. Therefore, well-conducted cost-analyses are crucial in the decision-making process. METHODS: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly therapies was performed following PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations. The search for records was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (May 2018). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joana Briggs Institute Tool. RESULTS: From initial 547 records, 16 studies were included in the review. The studies could present more than one economic evaluation, and encompassed cost-effectiveness (n = 13), cost-utility (n = 5), and cost-consequence (n = 1) analyses. All studies were model-based and evaluated only direct medical costs. Eleven records did not mention discounting and only 10 performed sensitivity analyses. The characteristic of the studies, the cost-effectiveness results and the studies' conclusions are described and commented upon. The main limitation of the studies was discussed and aspects to improve in future studies were pointed out. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly have been performed in several scenarios, evaluating different phases of treatment. However, the studies present limitations and, overall, were considered of moderate quality. Further economic models should be developed following health economics guidelines recommendations, and must improve transparency.