Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Clinical Equivalence between Generic Versus Branded Antibiotics: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Regulatory authorities authorize the clinical use of generic drugs (GD) based on bioequivalence studies, which consist of the evaluation of pharmacokinetics after a single dose in vitro or in healthy individuals. There are few data on clinical equivalence between generic and branded antibiotics. Our aim was to synthesize and analyze the available evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of generic antibiotics compared to their original formulations. A systematic review was performed on Medline (PubMed) and Embase and validated through Epistemonikos and Google Scholar. The last search was conducted on 30 June 2022. Meta-analyses of clinical cure and mortality outcomes were performed. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) and 10 non-randomized intervention studies were included. No differences in clinical cure were observed between groups in the meta-analysis (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.61-1.28]; I2 = 70%, p = 0.005). No difference was observed between groups when considering the use of carbapenems for overall mortality (OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.63-1.55]; I2 = 78%) or death associated with infections (OR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.48-1.29], I2 = 67%). Most of the studies were observational, and the duration of follow-up, the characteristics of the participants, and the sites of infections were heterogeneous. Due to the uncertainty of the evidence, it is not possible to contraindicate the use of generics, which is an important strategy to expand access.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. / Hidroxicloroquina para Pacientes com COVID-19 não Hospitalizados: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate. CONCLUSION: Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

FUNDAMENTO: Revisões sistemáticas anteriores não identificaram benefício do uso da hidroxicloroquina ou da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados. Após a publicação dessas revisões, os resultados do COPE, o maior ensaio clínico randomizado até hoje, tornaram-se disponíveis. OBJETIVOS: Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) para sintetizar as evidências sobre a eficácia e a segurança da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados em comparação a controle ou tratamento padrão. MÉTODOS: As buscas foram conduzidas nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library e ClinicalTrials.gov, e complementadas por busca manual. Foram realizadas metanálises diretas e avaliações de risco de viés e certeza da evidência, incluindo análise do tamanho ótimo da informação (OIS, optimal information size). Um nível de significância de 0,05 foi adotado na metanálise. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTADOS: Oito ECRs com 3219 participantes foram incluídos. As taxas de internação por COVID-19 e de eventos adversos não foram significativamente diferentes entre hidroxicloroquina (5,6% e 5,1%) e controle (7,4% e 20,4%) [risco relativo (RR) 0,77, intervalo de confiança 95% (IC95%), 0,57-1,04, I2: 0%; RR 1,78, IC95% 0,90; 3,52, I2: 93%, respectivamente)]. O OIS (7880) não foi alcançado para hospitalização por COVID-19, independentemente da simulação para a taxa de evento e redução do RR estimados. CONCLUSÃO: A evidência de muito baixa qualidade indicou falta de benefício com hidroxicloroquina em prevenir internações por COVID-19. Apesar de ser a revisão sistemática com o maior número de participantes incluídos, o OIS, considerando a resposta à infecção anterior à vacinação, não foi atingido.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]). Interpretation: In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Validation of a Battery of Neuropsychological Tests for Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

This study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of Trail Making Test (TMT), Continuous Reaction Time (CRT), Finger Tapping Test (FTT), Digit Span Test (DST), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in Brazilian patients with metastatic cancer. Cognitive performance of 178 patients with metastatic cancer and 79 controls was assessed using the TMT, CRT, FTT, DST, and MMSE. Discriminant validity, concurrent validity, and reliability (39 patients were retested after 3-7 days) were investigated. Discriminant validity between groups was observed in TMT, DST, and MMSE. Measures of concurrent validity and cognitive performance were positively correlated with physical performance, education level, and better performance on MMSE. Negative correlations were observed between cognitive function, pain, anxiety, and depression. All tests but FTT demonstrated very good reliability. Thus, all neuropsychological tests but FTT showed psychometric properties that permit their use in clinical and research purposes in patients with metastatic cancer.

Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are highly prevalent in breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers. Their symptoms negatively affect quality of life and functionality and optimal management can mitigate these problems. There are two different targeted agents to treat them: bisphosphonates (pamidronate and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab. Estimates of cost-effectiveness are still mixed. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of economic studies that compares these two options. METHOD: Literature search comprised eight databases and keywords for bone metastases, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and economic studies were used. Data were extracted regarding their methodologic characteristics and cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies were evaluated regarding to its methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 263 unique studies were retrieved and six met inclusion criteria. All studies were based on clinical trials and other existing literature data, and they had high methodological quality. Most found unfavorable cost-effectiveness for denosumab compared with zoledronic acid, with adjusted ICERS that ranged from $4638-87,354 per SRE avoided and from US$57,274-4.81 M. per QALY gained, which varied widely according to type of tumor, time horizon, among others. Results were sensitive to drug costs, time to first skeletal-related event (SRE), time horizon, and utility. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab had unfavorable cost-effectiveness compared with zoledronic acid in most of the included studies. New economic studies based on real-world data and longer time horizons comparing these therapeutic options are needed.

Hidroxicloroquina para Pacientes com COVID-19 não Hospitalizados: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados / Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Resumo Fundamento: Revisões sistemáticas anteriores não identificaram benefício do uso da hidroxicloroquina ou da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados. Após a publicação dessas revisões, os resultados do COPE, o maior ensaio clínico randomizado até hoje, tornaram-se disponíveis. Objetivos: Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) para sintetizar as evidências sobre a eficácia e a segurança da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados em comparação a controle ou tratamento padrão. Métodos: As buscas foram conduzidas nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library e ClinicalTrials.gov, e complementadas por busca manual. Foram realizadas metanálises diretas e avaliações de risco de viés e certeza da evidência, incluindo análise do tamanho ótimo da informação (OIS, optimal information size). Um nível de significância de 0,05 foi adotado na metanálise. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. Resultados: Oito ECRs com 3219 participantes foram incluídos. As taxas de internação por COVID-19 e de eventos adversos não foram significativamente diferentes entre hidroxicloroquina (5,6% e 5,1%) e controle (7,4% e 20,4%) [risco relativo (RR) 0,77, intervalo de confiança 95% (IC95%), 0,57-1,04, I2: 0%; RR 1,78, IC95% 0,90; 3,52, I2: 93%, respectivamente)]. O OIS (7880) não foi alcançado para hospitalização por COVID-19, independentemente da simulação para a taxa de evento e redução do RR estimados. Conclusão: A evidência de muito baixa qualidade indicou falta de benefício com hidroxicloroquina em prevenir internações por COVID-19. Apesar de ser a revisão sistemática com o maior número de participantes incluídos, o OIS, considerando a resposta à infecção anterior à vacinação, não foi atingido.

Abstract Background: Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care. Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. Results: Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate. Conclusion: Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.