A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for comparing the effectiveness and safety profile of treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The relative effectiveness and safety profile of the treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) are not well known because randomized controlled trials with head-to-head comparisons between these treatments do not exist. Thus, a network of multiple-treatments meta-analysis was performed using four clinical outcomes: 'patients free of relapse', 'patients without disease progression', 'patients without MRI progression' and 'patients with adverse events'. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MS were systematically searched in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial. The network analysis performed pairwise comparisons between the marketed treatments (Betaferon 250mcg, Avonex 30mcg, Rebif 44mcg, Rebif 22mcg, Aubagio 7 mg, Aubagio 14 mg, Copaxone 20 mg, Tysabri 300 mg, Gilenya 0·5 mg and Novantrone 12 mg/m(2)) using direct and indirect analyses. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The analysis included 48 articles, involving 20 455 patients with MS. The direct analysis showed better response for more than one outcome for Gilenya compared with Avonex ('patients free of relapse' and 'patients without MRI progression') and for Betaferon compared with Avonex ('patients without disease progression' and 'patients without MRI progression'). The indirect analysis indicated that Tysabri may have better relative effectiveness compared with the other treatments for two outcomes: 'patients free of relapse' and 'patients without MRI progression'. Regarding 'patients with adverse events', no data were available for all comparisons to make fair inferences. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This was an attempt, for the first time, to compare the efficacy and safety profile of existing approved treatments for relapsing MS. Although some treatments have shown better response, the results of the network analysis should be interpreted with caution because of the lack of RCTs with head-to-head comparisons between treatments.

A baseline tool for predicting response to peginterferon alfa-2a in HBeAg-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND: Peginterferon induces off-treatment responses in approximately one-third of patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B. AIM: To develop an easy-to-use baseline prediction score to identify hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype B-/C-infected HBeAg-positive Asian patients likely to respond to peginterferon alfa-2a. METHODS: Generalised additive models, multiple logistic regression (MLR) analysis and internal validation methods were applied to data from 647 HBeAg-positive patients from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan to develop a scoring system to predict response 24 weeks after completing a 48-week course of peginterferon alfa-2a. RESULTS: Five baseline factors (age, sex, alanine aminotransferase ratio, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level and HBV DNA level) were retained in the final MLR for HBeAg seroconversion and used to develop a scoring system from 0 to 7. Among patients with scores of 0-1, 2-3, 4 or ≥5, HBeAg seroconversion was achieved in 6.4% (6/94), 23.0% (61/265), 36.4% (67/184) and 54.8% (57/104), respectively, and a combined response (HBeAg seroconversion plus HBV DNA <2000 IU/mL) in 5.3% (5/94), 12.8% (34/265), 25.0% (46/184) and 36.5% (38/104), respectively. Among patients with scores of 0-1, 2-3, 4 or ≥5, 57.0% (53/93), 12.3% (31/253), 3.4% (6/178) and 1.0% (1/100) had HBsAg ≥20 000 IU/mL at treatment Week 12; only 3/91 (3.3%) with HBsAg ≥20 000 IU/mL experienced a combined response at 24 weeks post-treatment (negative predictive value = 97% [88/91]). CONCLUSION: A pre-treatment scoring system using readily available baseline characteristics identifies HBeAg-positive Asian patients likely to experience sustained HBeAg seroconversion after treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a.

Responses are durable for up to 5 years after completion of peginterferon alfa-2a treatment in hepatitis B e antigen-positive patients.

BACKGROUND: In the large randomised NEPTUNE study, peginterferon alfa-2a 180 µg/wk for 48 weeks produced higher hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion rates 24 weeks post-treatment (36%) than a lower dose (90 µg/wk) and/or shorter duration (24 weeks) (range 14%-26%). AIM: To determine seroconversion rates 5 years after completion of treatment in NEPTUNE. METHODS: HBeAg-positive patients who completed 24 weeks' follow-up in NEPTUNE (with peginterferon alfa-2a 90 µg/wk × 24 weeks [group 1]; 180 µg/wk × 24 weeks [2]; 90 µg/wk × 48 weeks [3] or 180 µg/wk × 48 weeks [4]) were followed up. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty three of the 544 patients in the original study were enrolled in the long-term follow-up study. Many patients (196 overall; more in groups 1-3 than 4) received nucleos(t)ide analogues or immunomodulators during follow-up, and more patients had missing data at year 5 in groups 2 and 4 (48 weeks, 50/112) than in groups 1 and 3 (24 weeks, 23/103), which confounds the planned per-protocol analysis. HBeAg seroconversion rates in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 at year 5 were 47.5%, 50.7%, 52.2% and 67.1%, respectively, (odds ratio for group 4 versus 1-3: 2.02; 95% CI 1.21, 3.38), using multiple imputation methods for missing measurements. CONCLUSION: Seroconversion rates are durable for up to 5 years after completion of peginterferon alfa-2a therapy and, consistent with NEPTUNE, the results suggest that the licensed regimen (180 µg × 48 weeks) is more efficacious for HBeAg-positive patients than a lower dose and/or shorter treatment duration.

Advanced life support versus basic life support in the pre-hospital setting: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The scientific evidence of a beneficial effect of ALS in pre-hospital treatment in trauma patients or patients with any acute illness is scarce. The objective of this systematic review of controlled studies was to examine whether ALS, as opposed to BLS, increases patient survival in pre-hospital treatment and if so, to identify the patient groups that gain benefit. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published in the databases Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Scopus up to July 31st, 2010. Controlled studies comparing survival after the pre-hospital ALS treatment versus BLS treatment in trauma patients or patients with cardiac arrest were included. RESULTS: We identified 1081 studies of which 18 met our inclusion criteria. In nine of 18 studies including 16,857 trauma patients in the intervention group, ALS care did not increase survival compared to BLS treatment (pooled OR 0.892, 95% CI, 0.775-1.026). In nine of 18 studies including 7659 patients with cardiac arrest in the intervention group, ALS care increased survival compared to BLS treatment (OR 1.468, 95% CI, 1.257-1.715). Most subgroup analyses revealed no significant interactions, but data from six trials, where ALS was provided by physicians, increases the probability of survival at hospital discharge even more (OR 2.047, 95% CI 1.593-2.631). CONCLUSION: Implementation of ALS care to non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients can increase survival and further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. On the contrary, in trauma patients our meta-analysis revealed that ALS care is not associated with increased survival. However, only few controlled studies of sufficient quality and strength examining survival with pre-hospital ALS treatment exist.