Using Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-analyses to Compare Efficacy of Brexanolone Injection with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Treating Postpartum Depression.

BACKGROUND: Brexanolone injection, the first therapy approved by the US FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (PPD) in adults, has been shown to produce a significantly greater decrease in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score than placebo in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with PPD. OBJECTIVES: Given the rapid effect of brexanolone injection (within 60 h) sustained throughout the length of the trials (30 days), we sought to compare its efficacy data against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the class of antidepressants most commonly prescribed for PPD, using HAM-D and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) outcomes from currently available RCTs. METHODS: We extracted data from 26 studies identified in a systematic literature review of pharmacological and pharmacological/nonpharmacological combination therapies in PPD. Six studies were suitable to form evidence networks through which to perform indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) of HAM-D and EPDS outcomes between brexanolone and SSRIs. Having assessed the comparability and suitability of the available evidence for analysis, we discovered significant heterogeneity in the study designs, most notably in the placebo arms of the trials. We therefore conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between brexanolone and the placebo arms of comparator studies, subsequently using the MAIC results of brexanolone versus placebo, and results for SSRIs versus placebo, to form ITCs of brexanolone versus SSRIs at three separate time points-day 3, week 4 and last observation. ITCs were calculated as the differences in change from baseline (CFB) in HAM-D and, separately, CFB in EPDS, between treatments, and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: For all time points, MAICs showed larger differences in CFB for brexanolone compared with SSRIs. Differences (95% CIs) between brexanolone and SSRIs were 12.79 (8.04-17.53) [day 3], 5.87 (- 1.62 to 13.37) [week 4] and 0.97 (- 6.35 to 8.30) [last observation] for the HAM-D. For the EPDS, the differences in CFB were 7.98 (5.32-10.64) [day 3], 6.35 (3.13-9.57) [week 4] and 4.05 (0.79-7.31) [last observation]. Other analytical approaches are also presented to demonstrate the similarity of results, using a network meta-analysis approach, and the importance of using the MAIC method to control for the important heterogeneity between placebo arms. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the limitations of ITCs and this evidence base, when compared with SSRIs, these analyses suggest that brexanolone demonstrated larger differences in CFB for both patient- and clinician-reported PPD outcomes and at all investigated time points after adjusting for differences between placebos in the included studies.

Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol.

PURPOSE: In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the once-daily, long-acting beta2-agonists olodaterol and indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an indirect treatment comparison by systematic review and synthesis of the available clinical evidence was conducted. METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with COPD was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olodaterol and indacaterol. Network meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison methods were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy, using outcomes based on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score and response, rescue medication use, and proportion of patients with exacerbations. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were identified for meta-analysis (eight, olodaterol; ten, indacaterol). Olodaterol trials included patients of all severities, whilst indacaterol trials excluded patients with very severe COPD. Concomitant maintenance bronchodilator use was allowed in most olodaterol trials, but not in indacaterol trials. When similarly designed trials/data were analyzed for change from baseline in trough FEV1 (liters), the following mean differences (95% confidence interval) were observed: trials excluding concomitant bronchodilator: indacaterol 75 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, -0.005 (-0.077 to 0.067), and indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.020 (-0.036 to 0.077); trials with concomitant tiotropium: indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.000 (-0.043 to 0.042). In sensitivity analyses of the full network, results for change from baseline in trough FEV1 favored indacaterol, but this dataset suffered from trial design heterogeneity. For the other endpoints investigated, no statistically significant differences were found when analyzed in the full network. CONCLUSION: When compared under similar trial conditions, olodaterol and indacaterol have similar efficacy in patients with COPD. This research highlights the importance of considering the concomitant COPD medication when evaluating treatment effects in COPD.

Major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving vitamin K antagonists: a systematic review of randomized and observational studies.

AIMS: Clinical trials have shown that anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), e.g. warfarin, decreases the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, increased bleeding risk is one of the safety concerns. The primary objective was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature, assessing the risk of major bleeding and mortality in patients with AF treated with VKAs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Online searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Library were performed to a pre-specified protocol from 1960 to March 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and from January 1990 to March 2012 for observational studies. A total of 47 studies (16 RCTs and 31 observational studies) were included. Cumulative follow-up was 61,563 patient-years for RCTs and 484 241 patient-years for observational studies. The overall median incidence of major bleeding was 2.1 per 100 patient-years (range, 0.9-3.4 per 100 patient-years) for RCTs and 2.0 per 100 patient-years (range, 0.2-7.6 per 100 patient-years) for observational studies. With study year as a proxy for changing management patterns, some evidence of bleeding rates and/or their reporting increasing over time was noted. Mortality rates from observational studies were inadequately reported to allow comparison with those from RCT data. CONCLUSION: The median rate of major bleeding in observational studies and RCTs is similar. The larger heterogeneity in bleeding rates observed in a real-life setting could reflect a high variability in standard of care of patients on VKAs and/or methodological differences between observational studies and/or variability in data sources.

A meta-analysis of pain response in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis compared efficacy (pain response) of drugs that are licensed or commonly used in the treatment of fibromyalgia. A meta-analysis of safety measured via discontinuation because of adverse events was also performed. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of 21 clinical trials to estimate treatment differences vs. placebo, separately, for duloxetine, fluoxetine, gabapentin, milnacipran, pramipexole, pregabalin, either of two tricyclic antidepressants, and tramadol plus paracetamol. Indirect treatment comparisons using mixed treatment comparisons methodology were conducted for all pairwise comparisons. Pain response was analyzed as improvement of at least 30%, and separately of 50%, from baseline. RESULTS: When compared with placebo, statistically significant pain responses (improvement of 30% and 50%) were observed for patients treated with duloxetine, milnacipran 200 mg/day, pregabalin 300 or 450 mg/day, and tramadol plus paracetamol. Treatment with fluoxetine, gabapentin, or milnacipran 100 mg/day resulted in significant findings for the 30% improvement in pain response. The meta-analysis showed a statistically increased risk of discontinuation because of adverse events for milnacipran 100 and 200 mg/day (both P < 0.001), and pregabalin 300 and 450 mg/day (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). All other treatments, except fluoxetine, showed numerically increased risk over placebo for discontinuation because of adverse events. In the indirect comparisons, no pairwise comparison of active treatments reached statistical significance for either pain response end point. CONCLUSION: All eight active treatments displayed evidence suggesting improvement over placebo in the treatment of pain in patients suffering from fibromyalgia. Indirect comparison of active treatments found no strong differences.

Treatments for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis and indirect comparisons versus dabigatran etexilate.

Patients with atrial fibrillation at moderate to high risk of stroke are not always anticoagulated despite a lack of contraindications to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) like warfarin. These patients are treated with aspirin, aspirin-clopidogrel combination therapy or even receive no thromboprophylaxis. The oral direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran etexilate 150 mg BID and 110 mg BID, might represent an alternative for these patients; however, no head-to-head clinical trial data exist versus these alternative treatments. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to indirectly compare dabigatran etexilate with antiplatelets and placebo. Compared with placebo, dabigatran etexilate 150 mg BID was estimated to significantly reduce the risk of any stroke (ischaemic and haemorrhagic) by 75% (relative risk [RR] 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12-0.51), ischaemic stroke by 77% (RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.14-0.38), systemic embolism by 83% (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.05-0.50) and mortality by 36% (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45-0.91). Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg BID was estimated to significantly reduce the risk of any stroke compared with aspirin monotherapy by 63% (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.20-0.69) and aspirin plus clopidogrel by 61% (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.21-0.72). Trends toward reduced risk with both dabigatran etexilate regimens were found for most clinical outcomes. Relative risk estimates of dabigatran etexilate versus adjusted-dose VKAs within the NMA were consistent with results from the head-to-head randomised trial of these two strategies. Indirect evidence suggests treatment with dabigatran etexilate offers benefit for the prevention of stroke, systemic embolism and mortality over antiplatelets and placebo. There was no indication of increased intracranial or extracranial haemorrhage with dabigatran etexilate compared to antiplatelet agents.

Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee and hip replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This was an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of oral dabigatran etexilate compared with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR) surgery from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: Dabigatran etexilate (220 mg once daily) was compared with enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) in patients undergoing TKR (duration of prophylaxis, 6-10 days) and THR (duration of prophylaxis, 28-35 days). The 10-week acute postsurgical phase was modeled using a decision tree. A Markov process (1-year cycle length) was used to model long-term events (recurrent VTE, postthrombotic syndrome, and consequences of intracranial hemorrhage) for patients' remaining lifetimes. Relative risks for VTE and bleeding events were derived from 2 Phase III studies that compared dabigatran etexilate with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. The probabilities of long-term events were estimated using data from published longitudinal studies. RESULTS: Rates of VTE and bleeding events did not differ significantly between dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin. Dabigatran etexilate was less costly than enoxaparin in TKR and substantially less costly in THR, primarily due to differences in administration costs. The cost of prophylaxis for THR patients, including drugs and administration costs, was estimated at pound 137 for dabigatran etexilate and pound 237 for enoxaparin ( pound 7 for nursing time during the hospital stay, pound 91 for nurse home visits for administration after hospital discharge, and an additional pound 2 in drug costs). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of pound 20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probability of cost-effectiveness for dabigatran etexilate was 75% in TKR and 97% in THR. These results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the UK National Health Service, thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate was cost-saving compared with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily, with comparable efficacy and safety profiles.

Efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism following total hip or knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis.

Dabigatran etexilate has been investigated in three phase III trials for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Health technology assessment agencies increasingly require meta-analyses of all relevant evidence for an intervention, if appropriate. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety data for the recommended dose of dabigatran etexilate, 220 mg once daily (od), for VTE prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA), and discuss the appropriateness of combining the data. Risk ratios (RR) for VTE and bleed end-points were estimated using fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were performed combining RE-MODEL and RE-NOVATE, which compared dabigatran etexilate with enoxaparin 40 mg od after TKA and THA, respectively, and also including RE-MOBILIZE, which compared dabigatran etexilate with enoxaparin 30 mg twice daily after TKA. Tests for statistical heterogeneity were performed using the Chi-squared statistic. No significant differences were detected between dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin in any of the end-points analysed, either in the two trial analysis (all p > 0.15), or when all three trials were combined ( all p > 0.30). RRs (random effects) for the composite end-point total VTE and all-cause mortality were 0.95 [95% confidence intervals 0.82 - 1.10] and 1.05 [0.87 - 1.26] in the two and three trial analyses, respectively. Meta-analysis of RE-MODEL and RE-NOVATE supported the conclusions of the individual trials that dabigatran etexilate is non-inferior to enoxaparin 40 mg od, with a similar safety profile. Meta-analysis of all three trials found no significant differences between treatments in any of the end-points analysed. Heterogeneity between the trials cannot be ruled out.

Atovaquone-proguanil versus chloroquine-proguanil for malaria prophylaxis in nonimmune pediatric travelers: results of an international, randomized, open-label study.

Atovaquone-proguanil has been shown to be effective and well tolerated for malaria prophylaxis in residents of countries of endemicity and in nonimmune adult travelers, but data about traveling children are limited. In a randomized, open-label, multicenter prophylaxis trial, 221 nonimmune pediatric travelers (age, 2-17 years) received either atovaquone-proguanil or chloroquine-proguanil. Safety and clinical outcome were evaluated 7, 28, and 60 days after travel. By posttravel day 7, a total of 39 (35%) of 110 atovaquone-proguanil and 41 (37%) of 111 chloroquine-proguanil recipients reported > or =1 adverse event. The data indicate that, over the course of treatment, fewer atovaquone-proguanil recipients had treatment-related adverse events (8% vs. 14%), including gastrointestinal complaints (5% vs. 10%). Two subjects discontinued prophylaxis because of drug-related adverse events; both had received chloroquine-proguanil. Observed compliance with prophylaxis was similar before and during travel, but it was higher for atovaquone-proguanil in the posttravel period. No study participant developed malaria. Atovaquone-proguanil was well tolerated and is an important addition to the limited arsenal of prophylactic agents available to children.