Network meta-analysis of CAR T-Cell therapy for the treatment of 3L+ R/R LBCL after using published comparative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have compared chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies and salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients, but further evidence of their relative effectiveness is warranted. METHODS: Our systematic review identified studies comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) trials to salvage chemotherapy cohorts in LBCL patients with ≥2 prior lines of treatment; and an extended evidence network included indirect comparisons comparing CAR T-cell therapies. We conducted network meta-analyzes using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: Three studies comparing ZUMA-1 (axi-cel), TRANSCEND (liso-cel) and JULIET (tisa-cel) trials to salvage chemotherapy within the SCHOLAR-1 cohort were identified. Axi-cel (odds ratio [OR]:5.63; 95% credible interval [CrI]:2.66-12.42) and liso-cel (OR:4.26; 95%CrI:2.33-7.93) showed a significant increased overall response rate compared to tisa-cel, but not to one-another. Axi-cel demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival relative to liso-cel (hazard ratio [HR]:0.54; 95%CrI:0.37-0.79) and tisa-cel (HR:0.47; 95%CrI:0.26-0.88). Higher rates of grade ≥3 neurological events were observed with axi-cel than with tisa-cel and liso-cel. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight important differences in clinical outcomes between CAR T-cell therapies. Axi-cel demonstrated improved overall survival compared to tisa-cel and liso-cel, and both axi-cel and liso-cel showed higher response rates compared to tisa-cel.

A Comparison of 3-Year Follow-up of ZUMA-5 (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) With SCHOLAR-5 in Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma.

In the pivotal ZUMA-5 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) demonstrated high rates of durable response in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients. SCHOLAR-5 is an external control cohort designed to act as a comparator to ZUMA-5. Here, we present an updated comparative analysis of ZUMA-5 and SCHOLAR-5, using the 36-month follow-up data and the intent-to-treat population of ZUMA-5. Using propensity-score methods, 127 patients in ZUMA-5 were compared to 129 patients in SCHOLAR-5. At this extended follow-up, axi-cel continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful benefits in survival compared to historically available treatments in this population.

Real-World Outcomes with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapies in Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), are innovative treatments for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Following initial regulatory approvals, real-world evidence (RWE) of clinical outcomes with these therapies has been accumulating rapidly. Notably, several large registry studies have been published recently. Here we comprehensively describe clinical outcomes with approved CAR-T therapies in patients with r/r LBCL using available RWE. We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and 15 conference proceedings to identify studies published between 2017 and July 2022 that included ≥10 patients with r/r LBCL treated with commercially available CAR-T therapies. Eligible study designs were retrospective or prospective observational studies. Key outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to compare real-world outcomes with those of pivotal clinical trials and to compare clinical outcomes associated with axi-cel and tisa-cel. Study cohort mapping was conducted to avoid including patients more than once. Of 76 cohorts we identified, 46 reported patients treated specifically with either axi-cel or tisa-cel, with 39 cohorts (n = 2754 patients) including axi-cel and 20 (n = 1649) including tisa-cel. No studies of liso-cel that met the inclusion criteria were identified during the search period. One-half of the tisa-cel cohorts were European, compared with 33% of the axi-cel cohorts. Among studies with available data, axi-cel had a significantly shorter median time from apheresis to CAR-T infusion than tisa-cel. Despite including broader patient populations, real-world effectiveness and safety of both axi-cel and tisa-cel were consistent with data from the pivotal clinical trials. Comparative meta-analysis of axi-cel versus tisa-cel demonstrated adjusted hazard ratios for OS and PFS of .60 (95% confidence interval [CI], .47 to .77) and .67 (95% CI, .57 to .78), respectively, both in favor of axi-cel. Odds ratios (ORs) for ORR and CR rate, both favoring axi-cel over tisa-cel, were 2.05 (95% CI, 1.76 to 2.40) and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.46 to 1.96), respectively. The probability of grade ≥3 CRS was comparable with axi-cel and tisa-cel, whereas axi-cel was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥3 ICANS (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 3.05 to 5.11). Our meta-analysis indicates that CAR-T therapies have manageable safety profiles and are effective in a wide range of patients with r/r LBCL, and that axi-cel is associated with improved OS and PFS and increased risk of grade ≥3 ICANS compared with tisa-cel. Limitations of this study include nonrandomized treatments, potential unknown prognostic factors, and the lack of available real-world data for liso-cel.

Early Treatment with Pegylated Interferon Lambda for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda in preventing clinical events among outpatients with acute symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, adaptive platform trial involving predominantly vaccinated adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Brazil and Canada. Outpatients who presented with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after the onset of symptoms received either pegylated interferon lambda (single subcutaneous injection, 180 µg) or placebo (single injection or oral). The primary composite outcome was hospitalization (or transfer to a tertiary hospital) or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients were assigned to receive pegylated interferon lambda (2 were subsequently excluded owing to protocol deviations) and 1018 were assigned to receive placebo. Overall, 83% of the patients had been vaccinated, and during the trial, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants had emerged. A total of 25 of 931 patients (2.7%) in the interferon group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 57 of 1018 (5.6%) in the placebo group, a difference of 51% (relative risk, 0.49; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.30 to 0.76; posterior probability of superiority to placebo, >99.9%). Results were generally consistent in analyses of secondary outcomes, including time to hospitalization for Covid-19 (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.33 to 0.95) and Covid-19-related hospitalization or death (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.35 to 0.97). The effects were consistent across dominant variants and independent of vaccination status. Among patients with a high viral load at baseline, those who received pegylated interferon lambda had lower viral loads by day 7 than those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among predominantly vaccinated outpatients with Covid-19, the incidence of hospitalization or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) was significantly lower among those who received a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda than among those who received placebo. (Funded by FastGrants and others; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

A 24-month updated analysis of the comparative effectiveness of ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) vs. SCHOLAR-5 external control in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: In the ZUMA-5 trial (Clinical trials identification: NCT03105336), axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) demonstrated high rates of durable response in relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) patients and clear superiority relative to the SCHOLAR-5 external control cohort. We update this comparison using the ZUMA-5 24-month data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The SCHOLAR-5 cohort is comprised of r/r FL patients who initiated ≥3rd line of therapy after July 2014 and meeting ZUMA-5 eligibility criteria. Groups were balanced for patient characteristics through propensity scoring on prespecified prognostic factors using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) weighting. The overall response rate was compared using a weighted logistic regression. Time-to-event outcomes were evaluated using a Cox regression. RESULTS: For SCHOLAR-5, the sum of weights for the 143 patients was 85 after SMR weighting, versus 86 patients in ZUMA-5. The median follow-up was 29.4 months and 25.4 months for ZUMA-5 and SCHOLAR-5, respectively. The hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.52 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.28-0.95) and 0.28 (95% CI: 0.17-0.45), favoring axi-cel. CONCLUSION: This updated analysis, using a longer minimum follow-up than a previously published analysis, shows that the improved efficacy of axi-cel, relative to available therapies, in r/r FL is durable. .

Clinical outcomes in patients relapsed/refractory after ≥2 prior lines of therapy for follicular lymphoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) can have high response rates to early lines of treatment. However, among FL patients relapsed/refractory (r/r) after ≥2 prior lines of therapy (LOT), remission tends to be shorter and there is limited treatment guidance. This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes for r/r FL after ≥2 prior LOT identified through systematic literature review. METHODS: Eligible studies included comparative or non-comparative interventional or observational studies of systemic therapies among adults with FL r/r after ≥2 prior LOT published prior to 31st May 2021. Prior LOT must have included an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and an alkylating agent, in combination or separately. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) were estimated using inverse-variance weighting with Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformations. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) estimated by reconstructing digitized curves using the Guyot algorithm, and survival analyses were conducted, stratified by ≥2 prior LOT and ≥ 3 prior LOT groups (as defined in the source material). Restricting the analyses to the observational cohorts was investigated as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The analysis-set included 20 studies published between 2014 and 2021. Studies were primarily US and/or European based, with the few exceptions using treatments approved in US/Europe. The estimated ORR was 58.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51.13-65.62) and proportion of patients with CR was 19.63% (95% CI: 15.02-24.68). The median OS among those ≥2 prior LOT was 56.57 months (95% CI: 47.8-68.78) and median PFS was 9.78 months (95% CI: 9.01-10.63). The 24-month OS decreased from 66.50% in the ≥2 prior LOT group to 59.51% in the ≥3 prior LOT group, with a similar trend in PFS at 24-month (28.42% vs 24.13%). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that few r/r FL patients with ≥2 prior LOT achieve CR, and despite some benefit, approximately 1/3 of treated patients die within 24 months. The shorter median PFS with increasing prior LOT suggest treatment durability is suboptimal in later LOT. These findings indicate that patients are underserved by treatments currently available in the US and Europe.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma: results from the international SCHOLAR-5 study.

The SCHOLAR-5 study examines treatment patterns and outcomes of real-world follicular lymphoma (FL) patients on 3rd line of treatment (LoT) or higher, for whom existing data are limited. SCHOLAR-5 is a retrospective cohort study using data from adults (≥ 18 years) with grade 1-3a FL, initiating ≥3rd LoT after June 2014 at major lymphoma centers in the US and Europe. Objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by LoT. Time-to-event outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Of 128 patients, 87 initiated 3rd LoT, 63 initiated 4th LoT, and 47 initiated 5th LoT. At 1st eligible LoT, 31% progressed within 24-months of 1st LoT anti-CD20 combination therapy, 28% had prior autologous stem cell transplantation, and 31% were refractory to the previous LoT. The most common regimen in each LoT was chemoimmunotherapy; however, experimental drugs were increasingly used at later LoT. In the US, anti-CD20 monotherapy was more common at ≥3rd LoT compared to Europe, where stem cell transplants were more common. ORR at 3rd LoT was 68% (CR 44%), but decreased after each LoT to 37% (CR 22%) in ≥5 LoT. Median OS and PFS at 3rd LoT were 68 and 11 months, respectively, and reduced to 43 and 4 months at ≥5 LoT. Treatments were heterogenous at each LoT in both the US and Europe. Few FL patients achieved CR in later LoT, and duration of response and survival diminished with each subsequent line.

Evidence synthesis evaluating body weight gain among people treating HIV with antiretroviral therapy - a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

Background: This systematic review aimed to compare body weight gain associated outcomes over time between dolutegravir (DTG)-based antiretroviral (ART) regimens to other ART regimens, to compare tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-based regimens, and to evaluate the associated prognostic factors. Methods: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for RCTs and observational studies comparing ART regimens were conducted on 13 September 2021. Outcomes of interest included: change in body weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference; and risk of hyperglycaemia and diabetes. Network meta-analyses were conducted at 12, 24, 48, 96 and 144 weeks using two networks differentiated by 3rd agents and backbone agents. Findings: The review identified 113 publications reporting on 73 studies. DTG-based regimens led to statistically higher weight gains than efavirenz-based regimens at all time points (mean difference: 1·99 kg at 96 weeks; 95% credible interval: 0·85-3·09) and was higher over time than low-dose efavirenz-, elvitegravir-, and rilpivirine-based regimens. They were comparable to raltegravir-, bictegravir- and atazanavir-based regimens. For backbones, TAF led to higher weight gain relative to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), abacavir, and zidovudine. Prognostic factor analysis showed both low CD4 cell count and high HIV RNA viral load at baseline were consistently associated with higher weight gain, while sex was an effect modifier to African origins. Interpretation: DTG-based regimens lead to larger average weight gains than some other ART regimens and TAF leads to larger average weight gains than all other backbone antiretrovirals. Further research is needed to better understand long-term outcomes and their relationship to other metabolic outcomes. Funding: The WHO Global HIV, Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections Programmes.

Comparative effectiveness of ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) vs SCHOLAR-5 external control in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma.

In the pivotal ZUMA-5 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel; an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) demonstrated high rates of durable response in relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. Here, outcomes from ZUMA-5 are compared with the international SCHOLAR-5 cohort, which applied key ZUMA-5 trial eligibility criteria simulating randomized controlled trial conditions. SCHOLAR-5 data were extracted from institutions in 5 countries, and from 1 historical clinical trial, for r/r FL patients who initiated a third or higher line of therapy after July 2014. Patient characteristics were balanced through propensity scoring on prespecified prognostic factors using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) weighting. Time-to-event outcomes were evaluated using weighted Kaplan-Meier analysis. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate were compared using weighted odds ratios. The 143 ScHOLAR-5 patients reduced to an effective sample of 85 patients after SMR weighting vs 86 patients in ZUMA-5. Median follow-up time was 25.4 and 23.3 months for SCHOLAR-5 and ZUMA-5. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in SCHOLAR-5 were 59.8 months and 12.7 months and not reached in ZUMA-5. Hazard ratios for OS and PFS were 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.83) and 0.30 (95% CI, 0.18-0.49). The ORR and CR rate were 49.9% and 29.9% in SCHOLAR-5 and 94.2% and 79.1% in ZUMA-5, for odds ratios of 16.2 (95% CI, 5.6-46.9) and 8.9 (95% CI, 4.3-18.3). Compared with available therapies, axi-cel demonstrated an improvement in meaningful clinical endpoints, suggesting axi-cel addresses an important unmet need for r/r FL patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03105336.

Disease-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in adults with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A correlation meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) using aggregate-level data from resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) trials assessing therapies in (neo)adjuvant and perioperative settings. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials reporting OS and DFS, or compatible progression-free survival (PFS). Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate correlation between the treatment effects on DFS/PFS and OS, and weighted linear regression models assuming trial sample sizes as weights were used to estimate surrogacy equations. The primary analysis consisted of trials across all treatment settings, and secondary analysis consisted of trials only in the adjuvant setting. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was performed to measure the stability and predictive accuracy of the surrogacy equations while surrogate threshold effects (STE)-the minimum treatment effect on DFS/PFS that would translate into a positive OS benefit-were derived to measure their usefulness. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 26 trials. The estimated correlation coefficient between the hazard ratio (HR) of DFS/PFS (HRDFS/PFS) and HR of OS (HROS) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.90). The estimated surrogacy equation was log(HROS) = 0.80 × log(HRDFS/PFS) with a corresponding STE of 0.82. Reported HROS was within the 95% prediction interval of the predicted HROS from the model for more than 95% of the trials in the LOOCV, indicating a valid model. Secondary analysis included 7 trials with an estimated correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.18-0.95). Through LOOCV, the surrogacy equation in the adjuvant setting was deemed valid. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that HRDFS/PFS -where DFS/PFS is defined as time from resection to disease recurrence (local, locoregional, or distant) or death-is correlated to HROS, and a valid and useful surrogate predictor for HROS in the neoadjuvant, perioperative, or adjuvant settings.

Nurse mentored, student research in undergraduate nursing education to support evidence-based practice: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate if an extracurricular research skills development program builds the knowledge, attitudes, and skills (KAS) to support evidence-based practice (EBP). METHODS: Twenty nursing students and six mentors in four teams completed small, student-led research projects over 1 year. Using a mixed-methods design, the knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP) survey was administered at three-time points, followed by qualitative interviews. A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to analyze survey data and thematic analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: The change from the KAP survey from the first to the third time point showed a statistically significant difference following engagement in the program. Qualitative data indicated benefits and challenges to participation for both students and mentors. Mentorship provided students with improved relationships, collaboration, and leadership skills. Students believed the program enhanced their understanding of research and reported increased confidence in using EBP. CONCLUSION: Offering students innovative first-hand experiences with research develops research KAS to support EBP.

Fixed- and Random-Effects Models.

Deciding whether to use a fixed-effect model or a random-effects model is a primary decision an analyst must make when combining the results from multiple studies through meta-analysis. Both modeling approaches estimate a single effect size of interest. The fixed-effect meta-analysis assumes that all studies share a single common effect and, as a result, all of the variance in observed effect sizes is attributable to sampling error. The random-effects meta-analysis estimates the mean of a distribution of effects, thus assuming that study effect sizes vary from one study to the next. Under this model, variance in observed effect sizes is attributable to both sampling error (within-study variance) and statistical heterogeneity (between-study variance).The most popular meta-analyses involve using a weighted average to combine the study-level effect sizes. Both fixed- and random-effects models use an inverse-variance weight (variance of the observed effect size). However, given the shared between-study variance used in the random-effects model, it leads to a more balanced distribution of weights than under the fixed-effect model (i.e., small studies are given more relative weight and large studies less). The standard error for these estimators also relates to the inverse-variance weights. As such, the standard errors and confidence intervals for the random-effects model are larger and wider than in the fixed-effect analysis. Indeed, in the presence of statistical heterogeneity, fixed-effect models can lead to overly narrow intervals.In addition to commonly used, generalizable models, there are additional fixed-effect models and random-effect models that can be considered. Additional fixed-effect models that are specific to dichotomous data are more robust to issues that arise from sparse data. Furthermore, random-effects models can be expanded upon using generalized linear mixed models so that different covariance structures are used to distribute statistical heterogeneity across multiple parameters. Finally, both fixed- and random-effects modeling can be conducted using a Bayesian framework.

Agalsidase beta treatment slows estimated glomerular filtration rate loss in classic Fabry disease patients: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fabry disease is a rare, X-linked genetic disorder that, if untreated in patients with the Classic phenotype, often progresses to end-stage kidney disease. This meta-analysis determined the effect of agalsidase beta on loss of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in the Classic phenotype using an expansive evidence base of individual patient-level data. METHODS: The evidence base included four Sanofi-Genzyme studies and six studies from a systematic literature review. These were restricted to Classic Fabry patients meeting the eligibility criteria from Phases III and IV agalsidase beta trials, including 315 patients (161 treated). Linear regression was first used to model annual change in eGFR for each patient and the resulting annualized eGFR slopes were modelled with treatment and covariates using quantile regression. These results were then used to estimate median annualized eGFR change in agalsidase beta treated versus untreated groups. RESULTS: Imbalances across treatment groups were found in baseline age, sex and proteinuria, but not in the use of renin-angiotensin system blockers. The adjusted model suggests that treated (agalsidase beta) patients experienced a slower median eGFR decrease [2.46 mL/min/1.73 m2/year slower; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-4.29; P = 0.0087] than comparable untreated patients. The median eGFR decrease was 2.64 mL/min/1.73 m2/year slower (95% CI 0.53-4.78; P = 0.0141) in treated Classic males. CONCLUSIONS: Using an expansive evidence base and robust modelling approach, these data indicate that agalsidase beta-treated patients with the Classic phenotype conserve their renal function better than untreated patients.

Comparing the use of aggregate data and various methods of integrating individual patient data to network meta-analysis and its application to first-line ART.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 World Health Organization HIV guidelines were based on the results of a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published trials. This study employed individual patient-level data (IPD) and aggregate data (AgD) and meta-regression methods to assess the evidence supporting the WHO recommendations and whether they needed any refinements. METHODS: Access to IPD from three trials was granted through ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR). Seven modelling approaches were applied and compared: 1) Unadjusted AgD network meta-analysis (NMA) - the original analysis; 2) AgD-NMA with meta-regression; 3) Two-stage IPD-AgD NMA; 4) Unadjusted one-stage IPD-AgD NMA; 5) One-stage IPD-AgD NMA with meta-regression (one-stage approach); 6) Two-stage IPD-AgD NMA with empirical-priors (empirical-priors approach); 7) Hierarchical meta-regression IPD-AgD NMA (HMR approach). The first two were the models used previously. Models were compared with respect to effect estimates, changes in the effect estimates, coefficient estimates, DIC and model fit, rankings and between-study heterogeneity. RESULTS: IPD were available for 2160 patients, representing 6.5% of the evidence base and 3 of 24 edges. The aspect of the model affected by the choice of modeling appeared to differ across outcomes. HMR consistently generated larger intervals, often with credible intervals (CrI) containing the null value. Discontinuations due to adverse events and viral suppression at 96 weeks were the only two outcomes for which the unadjusted AgD NMA would not be selected. For the first, the selected model shifted the principal comparison of interest from an odds ratio of 0.28 (95% CrI: 10.17, 0.44) to 0.37 (95% CrI: 0.23, 0.58). Throughout all outcomes, the regression estimates differed substantially between AgD and IPD methods, with the latter being more often larger in magnitude and statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the use of IPD often impacted the coefficient estimates, but not sufficiently as to necessitate altering the final recommendations of the 2018 WHO Guidelines. Future work should examine the features of a network where adjustments will have an impact, such as how much IPD is required in a given size of network.

Decentralisation, integration, and task-shifting in hepatitis C virus infection testing and treatment: a global systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing access to hepatitis C virus (HCV) care and treatment will require simplified service delivery models. We aimed to evaluate the effects of decentralisation and integration of testing, care, and treatment with harm-reduction and other services, and task-shifting to non-specialists on outcomes across the HCV care continuum. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, WHO Global Index Medicus, and conference abstracts for studies published between Jan 1, 2008, and Feb 20, 2018, that evaluated uptake of HCV testing, linkage to care, treatment, cure assessment, and sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) in people who inject drugs, people in prisons, people living with HIV, and the general population. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies with a sample size of ten or less for the largest denominator were excluded. Studies were categorised according to the level of decentralisation: full (testing and treatment at same site), partial (testing at decentralised site and referral elsewhere for treatment), or none. Task-shifting was categorised as treatment by specialists or non-specialists. Data on outcomes across the HCV care continuum (linkage to care, treatment uptake, and SVR12) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Our search identified 8050 reports, of which 132 met the eligibility criteria, and an additional ten reports were identified from reference citations and grey literature. Therefore, the final synthesis included 142 studies from 34 countries (20 [14%] studies from low-income and middle-income countries) and a total of 489 996 patients (239 446 [49%] from low-income and middle-income countries). Rates of linkage to care were higher with full decentralisation compared with partial or no decentralisation among people who inject drugs (full 72% [95% CI 57-85] vs partial 53% [38-67] vs none 47% [11-84]) and among people in prisons (full 94% [79-100] vs partial 50% [29-71]), although the CIs overlap for people who inject drugs. Similarly, treatment uptake was higher with full decentralisation compared with partial or no decentralisation (people who inject drugs: full 73% [65-80] vs partial 66% [55-77] vs none 35% [23-48]; people in prisons: full 72% [48-91] vs partial 39% [17-63]), although CIs overlap for full versus partial decentralisation. The results in the general population studies were more heterogeneous. SVR12 rates were high (≥90%) across different levels of decentralisation in all populations. Task-shifting of care and treatment to a non-specialist was associated with similar SVR12 rates to treatment delivered by specialists. There was a severe or critical risk of bias for 46% of studies, and heterogeneity across studies tended to be very high (I2>90%). INTERPRETATION: Decentralisation and integration of HCV care to harm-reduction sites or primary care showed some evidence of improved access to testing, linkage to care, and treatment, and task-shifting of care and treatment to non-specialists was associated with similarly high cure rates to care delivered by specialists, across a range of populations and settings. These findings provide support for the adoption of decentralisation and task-shifting to non-specialists in national HCV programmes. FUNDING: Unitaid.

When does the use of individual patient data in network meta-analysis make a difference? A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: The use of individual patient data (IPD) in network meta-analyses (NMA) is rapidly growing. This study aimed to determine, through simulations, the impact of select factors on the validity and precision of NMA estimates when combining IPD and aggregate data (AgD) relative to using AgD only. METHODS: Three analysis strategies were compared via simulations: 1) AgD NMA without adjustments (AgD-NMA); 2) AgD NMA with meta-regression (AgD-NMA-MR); and 3) IPD-AgD NMA with meta-regression (IPD-NMA). We compared 108 parameter permutations: number of network nodes (3, 5 or 10); proportion of treatment comparisons informed by IPD (low, medium or high); equal size trials (2-armed with 200 patients per arm) or larger IPD trials (500 patients per arm); sparse or well-populated networks; and type of effect-modification (none, constant across treatment comparisons, or exchangeable). Data were generated over 200 simulations for each combination of parameters, each using linear regression with Normal distributions. To assess model performance and estimate validity, the mean squared error (MSE) and bias of treatment-effect and covariate estimates were collected. Standard errors (SE) and percentiles were used to compare estimate precision. RESULTS: Overall, IPD-NMA performed best in terms of validity and precision. The median MSE was lower in the IPD-NMA in 88 of 108 scenarios (similar results otherwise). On average, the IPD-NMA median MSE was 0.54 times the median using AgD-NMA-MR. Similarly, the SEs of the IPD-NMA treatment-effect estimates were 1/5 the size of AgD-NMA-MR SEs. The magnitude of superior validity and precision of using IPD-NMA varied across scenarios and was associated with the amount of IPD. Using IPD in small or sparse networks consistently led to improved validity and precision; however, in large/dense networks IPD tended to have negligible impact if too few IPD were included. Similar results also apply to the meta-regression coefficient estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation study suggests that the use of IPD in NMA will considerably improve the validity and precision of estimates of treatment effect and regression coefficients in the most NMA IPD data-scenarios. However, IPD may not add meaningful validity and precision to NMAs of large and dense treatment networks when negligible IPD are used.

Gastrointestinal adverse events with insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis.

AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are the recommended first injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes. However, long-term persistence is suboptimal and partly attributable to gastrointestinal tolerability, particularly during initiation/escalation. Gradual titration of fixed-ratio combination GLP-1 RA/insulin therapies may improve GLP-1 RA gastrointestinal tolerability. We compared gastrointestinal adverse event (AE) rates for iGlarLixi versus GLP-1 RAs during the first 12 weeks of therapy, including a sensitivity analysis with IDegLira. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PICO framework was used to identify studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL searches using a proprietary, web-based, standardized tool with single data extraction. Gastrointestinal AEs were modelled using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), using fixed and random effects for each recommended dose (treatment-specific NMA) and class (drug-class NMA). RESULTS: Treatment-specific NMA included 17 trials (n = 9030; 3665 event-weeks). Nausea rates were significantly lower with iGlarLixi versus exenatide 10 µg twice daily (rate ratio: 0.32; 95% credible interval: 0.15, 0.66), once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg (0.35; 0.24, 0.50) and liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (0.48; 0.23, 0.98). Rates were numerically, but not statistically, lower versus once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg (0.60; 0.30, 1.23) and dulaglutide 1.5 mg (0.60; 0.29, 1.26), and numerically, but not statistically, higher versus once-weekly exenatide (1.91; 0.91, 4.03). Sensitivity analysis results were similar. In a naïve, pooled analysis, vomiting was lower with iGlarLixi versus other GLP-1 RAs. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 12 weeks of treatment, iGlarLixi was generally associated with less nausea and vomiting than single-agent GLP-1 RAs. Enhanced gastrointestinal tolerability with fixed-ratio combinations may favour treatment persistence.

Real-World Effectiveness Analysis of Switching From Liraglutide or Dulaglutide to Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Retrospective REALISE-DM Study.

INTRODUCTION: Injectable semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that was previously shown to be superior to liraglutide and dulaglutide in head-to-head comparisons in GLP-1 RA-naïve individuals. It is hypothesized that semaglutide will cause further reductions in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients previously treated with liraglutide or dulaglutide. The REALISE-DM study provides the first real-world evidence of the effectiveness and tolerability of semaglutide in patients switching from another GLP-1 RA. METHODS: This retrospective real-world effectiveness analysis included T2DM adults who were on a stable dose of liraglutide or dulaglutide prior to switching to semaglutide. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were the changes in weight and body mass index (BMI), the occurrence of gastrointestinal side effects (GSEs), and discontinuations. Linear mixed models were used to estimate changes in HbA1c, weight, and BMI, and logistic regression was employed to analyze GSEs and discontinuations. RESULTS: Six months after the 164 patients in this study had switched to semaglutide, their mean HbA1c had decreased by 0.65% (7.1 mmol/mol) (95% prediction interval [PI]: 0.48, 0.81% [5.2, 8.9 mmol/mol]) from a baseline of 7.9% (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.3, 8.8) (62.8 mmol/mol [IQR: 56.3, 72.7]), while their weight and BMI had reduced by 1.69 kg (95% PI: 1.01, 2.37) and 0.59 kg/m2 (95% PI: 0.34, 0.84), respectively. Nineteen patients (11.6%) developed GSEs after switching. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports switching T2DM patients on liraglutide or dulaglutide to injectable semaglutide to achieve further reductions in HbA1c and weight. Although a small number of GSEs occurred, semaglutide was well tolerated by the majority of the patients.

Comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of dolutegravir and efavirenz 400mg among antiretroviral therapies for first-line HIV treatment: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To inform World Health Organization (WHO) global guidelines, we updated and expanded the evidence base to assess the comparative efficacy, tolerability, and safety of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline and CENTRAL on 28 February 2020 to update the systematic literature review of clinical trials comparing recommended first-line ART that informed previous WHO guidelines. Outcomes included viral suppression, change in CD4 cell counts, mortality, serious and overall adverse events (AEs), discontinuation, discontinuations due to AEs (DAEs); and new outcomes: drug-resistance, neuropsychiatric AEs, early viral suppression, weight gain and birth outcomes. Comparative effects were assessed through network meta-analyses and certainty in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. FINDINGS: We identified 156 publications pertaining to 68 trials for the primary population. Relative to efavirenz, dolutegravir had improved odds of viral suppression across all time points (odds ratio [OR]: 1·94; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1·48-2·56 at 96 weeks); was protective of drug-resistance (OR: 0·13; 95%CrI: 0·04-0·48); and led to fewer discontinuations (OR: 0·58; 95%CrI: 0·48-0·70). Evidence supported dolutegravir use among TB-HIV co-infected persons and pregnant women. Adverse birth outcomes were observed in 33.2% of dolutegravir-managed pregnancies and 35.0% of efavirenz-managed pregnancies. Low-dose efavirenz had comparable efficacy and safety to standard-dose efavirenz, but led to fewer DAEs (OR: 0·70; 95%CrI: 0·50-0·92). INTERPRETATION: The evidence supports choosing dolutegravir in combination with lamivudine/emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate as the preferred first-line regimen and low-dose efavirenz-based regimens as an alternative. Dolutegravir can be considered to be effective, safe and tolerable. FUNDING: WHO.

Comparative efficacy and safety of dabrafenib in combination with trametinib versus competing adjuvant therapies for high-risk melanoma.

Aim To conduct a systematic literature review of high-risk resectable cutaneous melanoma adjuvant therapeutics and compare safety and efficacy. Methods: The systematic literature review included randomized controlled trials investigating: dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB + TRAM), nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, vemurafenib, chemotherapy and interferons. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and safety. All outcomes were synthesized using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Across relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and OS, DAB + TRAM had the lowest estimated hazards of respective events relative to all other treatments (exception relative to nivolumab in OS). Differences were significant relative to placebo, chemotherapy, interferons and ipilimumab. Conclusion: DAB + TRAM has improved efficacy over historical treatment options (ipilimumab, interferons and chemotherapy) and comparable efficacy with other targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors.