Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
J Med Econ ; 27(1): 337-343, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38373018

RESUMO

AIMS: Two randomized clinical trials, REDUCE and RESPECT, demonstrated that patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in combination with antithrombotic therapy was more effective for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke compared with antithrombotic therapy alone. The aim of this study was to determine the relative efficacy and safety of the PFO closure devices used in REDUCE (HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders) compared with the device used in RESPECT (Amplatzer PFO Occluder). METHODS: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the PFO closure arms of the REDUCE and RESPECT trials was performed using patient-level data from REDUCE weighted to match baseline characteristics from RESPECT. Comparisons of the following outcomes were made between the devices assessed in the trials: risk of recurrent ischemic stroke; recurrent ischemic stroke one year after randomization; any serious adverse event (SAE) related to the procedure or device; and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as an SAE related to the procedure or device. RESULTS: After conducting the MAIC, baseline characteristics were well-matched between the two trials. Compared to RESPECT, PFO closure using the devices from REDUCE resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.43; p = 0.17) for the risk of recurrent stroke. For the recurrence of stroke after one year, SAE related to the procedure or device, and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as SAE related to the procedure or device, the MAIC resulted in a rate difference of -0.68 (95%CI -2.06 to 0.70; p = .34), -1.29 (95%CI -3.82 to 1.25; p = .32), and -0.19 (95%CI -1.16 to 0.78; p = .71), respectively. These findings were consistent across scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This MAIC analysis found no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety outcomes between PFO closure with the HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders versus the Amplatzer PFO Occluder, as used in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials.


The individual efficacy and safety of medical devices used for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in patients with stroke of unknown origin has been demonstrated in two independent trials: REDUCE (using the HELEX Septal Occluder and the CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder) and RESPECT (using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder). In the absence of a direct head-to-head trial for these devices, indirect treatment comparisons offer an alternative to assess their relative efficacy and safety. This study used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to demonstrate that there were no significant differences between the devices used for PFO closure in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials in terms of safety outcomes.


Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial , Flutter Atrial , Forame Oval Patente , AVC Isquêmico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Humanos , Fibrilação Atrial/complicações , Fibrilação Atrial/cirurgia , Fibrinolíticos , Forame Oval Patente/complicações , Forame Oval Patente/cirurgia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle
2.
Pharmacoecon Open ; 6(5): 637-646, 2022 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35790681

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing is increasingly used to identify eligible patients for targeted treatments. Guidance on how CDx testing should be incorporated into cost-effectiveness models (CEM) is limited. This review evaluated how health technology assessment bodies and research organizations considered CDx in CEMs of targeted therapies in oncology and whether this ultimately impacted their decisions or time from regulatory approval to recommendations. METHODS: An exhaustive list of approved CDx tests in oncology was compiled. For corresponding indications and treatments, NICE appraisals published between 2016 and 2019 were identified. Then, assessments for the same treatments issued from 11 other agencies were reviewed. Data extracted included background and CDx information, CDx's role in the CEM, and recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-seven NICE appraisals were identified; 15 considered CDx testing in the CEM, while 12 did not, mainly because testing had already been established for the comparators within the same class or in clinical practice from a prior treatment line. Both testing costs and mutation prevalence drove CDx testing costs per patient. The cross-comparison of assessments showed that CDx test characteristics were inconsistently reported. Time from regulatory approval to recommendations was not impacted by CDx cost inclusion in CEMs. CONCLUSION: CDx testing was included in cost-effectiveness models whenever mutation testing was required solely for patients receiving targeted treatment; cost per patient was based on test costs and mutation prevalence. It is unclear if expanded reliance on CDx testing will impact future assessments of targeted therapies. A future update is warranted to track trends over time.

3.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res ; 20(6): 563-570, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32951480

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disease, affecting millions of people worldwide and imposing heavy economic burdens to societies. Currently, only symptomatic treatments are available for patients, but there is ongoing research on potential therapies that can modify the course of disease. The main objective of this work is to identify and explore the challenges surrounding decision modeling for economic evaluation of interventions for AD. AREAS COVERED: This article discusses the challenges in modeling the natural history of disease, particularly regarding the selection of disease progression and outcome measures, the inclusion of biomarker status in models, and the approach to model mortality. Challenges stemming from the use of long-term assumptions regarding treatment effects and the need for real-world evidence to fill data gaps are discussed. Lastly, the overwhelming economic impact of disease and the challenges in estimating these costs for modeling are addressed. EXPERT OPINION: Value assessment frameworks need to be reconsidered in order to demonstrate the full benefit of new disease-modifying therapies spanning beyond the scope of health systems. Data collection efforts that expand the evidence base, upon which economic models are based, will reduce the uncertainties surrounding the long-term outcomes of interventions in AD.


Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer/tratamento farmacológico , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Modelos Econômicos , Doença de Alzheimer/economia , Doença de Alzheimer/fisiopatologia , Biomarcadores/metabolismo , Progressão da Doença , Humanos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA