Intraindividual Comparisons to Determine Comparative Effectiveness: Their Relevance for G-BA's Health Technology Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessments (HTA) rely on head-to-head comparisons. We searched for intraindividual comparisons (IIC) qualifying as head-to-head design to develop comparative evidence. METHODS: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) appraisals between January 2011 and April 2020 were reviewed for inclusion of IIC. Identified IIC were grouped according to disease characteristics into nonprogressive, progressive, irregular, or symmetrical conditions. Evaluation of IIC by Institut für Qualität und Wirschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWIG) and acceptance of IIC by G-BA were determined, and criteria for the usage and quality of IIC were developed. RESULTS: A total of 483 appraisals finalized between January 2011 and April 2020 were reviewed. Eleven appraisals included IIC: nonacog beta (hemophilia B), turoctocog alpha (hemophilia A), emicizumab (2 appraisals: hemophilia A), pasireotide (unresectable pituitary tumor), lomitapid (homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia), glycerol phenylbutyrate (2 appraisals: urea cycle disorders), asfotase alfa (hypophosphatasia), lumacaftor (cystic fibrosis), and larotrectinib (NTRK+ solid tumors). All those appraisals related to rare genetic conditions with hemophilia and its bleeding rate are considered mainly a nonprogressive condition. All the other diseases show progressive disease characteristics. None of the identified IIC has been accepted by G-BA. Inconsistencies of before/after study design, lack of clarity on treatments prior to the switch, and different time intervals were among the most commonly cited methodological concerns. CONCLUSIONS: IICs provide a rare opportunity to determine comparative effectiveness in distinct clinical settings that are not suitable or difficult to randomize into parallel groups. While manufacturers and researchers should aim for highest methodological standards when running an IIC, HTA bodies should accept IIC in distinct settings when determining relative effectiveness.

On estimands and the analysis of adverse events in the presence of varying follow-up times within the benefit assessment of therapies.

The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit-risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow-up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as its focus the analysis of AE data in the presence of varying follow-up times within the benefit assessment of therapeutic interventions. Instead of approaching this issue directly and solely from an analysis point of view, we first discuss what should be estimated in the context of safety data, leading to the concept of estimands. Although the current discussion on estimands is mainly related to efficacy evaluation, the concept is applicable to safety endpoints as well. Within the framework of estimands, we present statistical methods for analysing AEs with the focus being on the time to the occurrence of the first AE of a specific type. We give recommendations which estimators should be used for the estimands described. Furthermore, we state practical implications of the analysis of AEs in clinical trials and give an overview of examples across different indications. We also provide a review of current practices of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with respect to the evaluation of safety data. Finally, we describe problems with meta-analyses of AE data and sketch possible solutions.

Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In Germany, a mandatory early benefit assessment (EBA) by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) is required for reimbursement of new marketing-authorised medicines. Additional benefit is based on patient-relevant endpoints in mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aimed to compare endpoints and related benefit categories used in marketing authorisation to those considered by G-BA in the field of oncology. METHODS: We evaluated EBAs in oncology commencing prior to 31 December 2013. Endpoints for the appropriate medicines, derived from European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC), manufacturers' value dossiers and G-BA decisions, were grouped into the three benefit categories. RESULTS: Of 23 oncology medicines evaluated, primary clinical trial endpoints were included in only 12 G-BA value decisions. Mortality endpoints were generally accepted by EMA and G-BA. However, G-BA excluded 80% of (co-)primary morbidity endpoints. Only 5 SPCs reported HRQoL instruments. G-BA accepted applied instruments in 15 medicines, but the manufacturers' analyses only in 5 medicines, of which 2 indicated an additional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality endpoints are accepted by EMA and G-BA. EMA accepted well established and clinically relevant morbidity endpoints (e.g. progression-free survival and response rate), which were mostly excluded by G-BA from their value decisions. The applicability of methods used for benefit assessments to HRQoL differs from the mortality and morbidity categories, and requires further clarification.

Effects of fibrinogen concentrate as first-line therapy during major aortic replacement surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fibrinogen is suggested to play an important role in managing major bleeding. However, clinical evidence regarding the effect of fibrinogen concentrate (derived from human plasma) on transfusion is limited. The authors assessed whether fibrinogen concentrate can reduce blood transfusion when given as intraoperative, targeted, first-line hemostatic therapy in bleeding patients undergoing aortic replacement surgery. METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, patients aged 18 yr or older undergoing elective thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic replacement surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass were randomized to fibrinogen concentrate or placebo, administered intraoperatively. Study medication was given if patients had clinically relevant coagulopathic bleeding immediately after removal from cardiopulmonary bypass and completion of surgical hemostasis. Dosing was individualized using the fibrin-based thromboelastometry test. If bleeding continued, a standardized transfusion protocol was followed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients in the fibrinogen concentrate group and 32 patients in the placebo group were eligible for the efficacy analysis. During the first 24 h after the administration of study medication, patients in the fibrinogen concentrate group received fewer allogeneic blood components than did patients in the placebo group (median, 2 vs. 13 U; P < 0.001; primary endpoint). Total avoidance of transfusion was achieved in 13 (45%) of 29 patients in the fibrinogen concentrate group, whereas 32 (100%) of 32 patients in the placebo group received transfusion (P < 0.001). There was no observed safety concern with using fibrinogen concentrate during aortic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Hemostatic therapy with fibrinogen concentrate in patients undergoing aortic surgery significantly reduced the transfusion of allogeneic blood products. Larger multicenter studies are necessary to confirm the role of fibrinogen concentrate in the management of perioperative bleeding in patients with life-threatening coagulopathy.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of roflumilast and roflumilast N-oxide in patients with mild and moderate liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Roflumilast and its primary N-oxide metabolite are targeted phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors with similar in vivo potency. Roflumilast is being developed for the treatment of inflammatory airway diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of mild and moderate liver cirrhosis on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of roflumilast and roflumilast N-oxide. METHODS: Patients with mild (n = 8, Child-Pugh A) and moderate (n = 8, Child-Pugh B) liver cirrhosis and healthy subjects (n = 8) matched with patients with cirrhosis with regard to sex, age and bodyweight received oral roflumilast 250 microg once daily for 14 days. Blood samples were collected for 24 hours after the last dose on day 14. Steady-state plasma concentrations of roflumilast and roflumilast N-oxide were determined using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry assay. The pharmacokinetics were compared between groups using ANOVA. RESULTS: In patients with liver cirrhosis, the average total exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 hours [AUC(24)]) of roflumilast was approximately 51% (Child-Pugh A) and 92% (Child-Pugh B) higher than in healthy subjects. In contrast, roflumilast maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) was unaltered in Child-Pugh A patients and was increased by 27% in Child-Pugh B patients. Changes in the AUC(24) of roflumilast N-oxide were less distinct, with 24% and 41% increases and corresponding C(max) increases of 26% and 40% in Child-Pugh A and B patients, respectively, compared with healthy subjects. Overall, changes in average potency-corrected exposure to the sum of the free fractions of both compounds were estimated to result in approximately 26% and 46% increases in total PDE4 inhibitory capacity (tPDE4i) in Child-Pugh A and B patients, respectively, relative to healthy subjects. Roflumilast was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Mild and moderate liver cirrhosis resulted in distinct alterations of exposure to roflumilast but only in modest alterations of exposure to roflumilast N-oxide. The integrated exposure-weighted assessment of the observed pharmacokinetic changes of roflumilast and roflumilast N-oxide (tPDE4i) indicates modest average exposure increases to the sum of both compounds. These findings and the favourable tolerability profile suggest that roflumilast can be safely used in patients with mild and moderate liver cirrhosis without special precautions or dose adjustment.

Lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction between steady-state roflumilast and single-dose midazolam in healthy subjects.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of roflumilast, an investigational PDE4 inhibitor for the treatment of COPD and asthma, on the pharmacokinetics of the CYP3A probe drug midazolam and its major metabolites. METHODS: In an open, randomized (for midazolam treatment sequence) study, 18 healthy male subjects received single doses of midazolam (2 mg oral and 1 mg i.v., 1 day apart) alone, repeated doses of roflumilast (500 microg once daily for 14 days) alone, and repeated doses of roflumilast together with single doses of midazolam (2 mg oral and 1 mg i.v., 1 day apart). RESULTS: A comparison of clearance and peak and systemic exposure to midazolam following administration of roflumilast indicated no effect of roflumilast dosed to steady state on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam. Point estimates (90% CI) were 0.97 (0.84, 1.13) for the AUC of i.v. midazolam and 0.98 (0.82, 1.17) for that of oral midazolam with and without roflumilast. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic steady state concentrations of roflumilast and its N-oxide do not alter the disposition of the CYP3A substrate midazolam in healthy subjects. This finding suggests that roflumilast is unlikely to alter the clearance of drugs that are metabolized by CYP3A4.

Dose-proportional intraindividual single- and repeated-dose pharmacokinetics of roflumilast, an oral, once-daily phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor.

The dose-proportional, intraindividual, single- and repeated-dose pharmacokinetics of roflumilast, an oral, once-daily phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor under investigation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, was investigated in healthy subjects. In an open, randomized, 2-period, 2-sequence crossover study, 15 subjects received immediate-release tablets of roflumilast 250 or 500 microg as single (day 1) and as repeated, once-daily doses for 8 days (days 5-12). Dose-adjusted point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of test (500 microg)/reference (250 microg) ratios for AUC and Cmax of roflumilast and its pharmacologically active N-oxide metabolite after single and repeated dosing were all within the standard equivalence acceptance range (0.80, 1.25) indicating dose proportionality. The pharmacokinetic properties of both roflumilast dosage forms provide clinically relevant evidence of predictable, intraindividual total (AUC) and maximum (Cmax) exposure of roflumilast and roflumilast N-oxide. Repeated oral dosing with roflumilast 250 and 500 microg once daily was well tolerated.