Clinical outcomes of chikungunya: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chikungunya is a viral disease caused by a mosquito-borne alphavirus. The acute phase of the disease includes symptoms such as fever and arthralgia and lasts 7-10 days. However, debilitating symptoms can persist for months or years. Despite the substantial impact of this disease, a comprehensive assessment of its clinical picture is currently lacking. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review on the clinical manifestations of chikungunya, their prevalence and duration, and related hospitalization. Embase and MEDLINE were searched with no time restrictions. Subsequently, meta-analyses were conducted to quantify pooled estimates on clinical outcomes, the symptomatic rate, the mortality rate, and the hospitalization rate. The pooling of effects was conducted using the inverse-variance weighting methods and generalized linear mixed effects models, with measures of heterogeneity reported. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 316 articles. Out of the 28 outcomes of interest, we were able to conduct 11 meta-analyses. The most prevalent symptoms during the acute phase included arthralgia in 90% of cases (95% CI: 83-94%), and fever in 88% of cases (95% CI: 85-90%). Upon employing broader inclusion criteria, the overall symptomatic rate was 75% (95% CI: 63-84%), the chronicity rate was 44% (95% CI: 31-57%), and the mortality rate was 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1-0.7%). The heterogeneity between subpopulations was more than 92% for most outcomes. We were not able to estimate all predefined outcomes, highlighting the existing data gap. CONCLUSION: Chikungunya is an emerging public health concern. Consequently, a thorough understanding of the clinical burden of this disease is necessary. Our study highlighted the substantial clinical burden of chikungunya in the acute phase and a potentially long-lasting chronic phase. Understanding this enables health authorities and healthcare professionals to effectively recognize and address the associated symptoms and raise awareness in society.

Evaluating the reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines from network-meta analyses.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based reassurances addressing vaccine-related concerns are crucial to promoting primary vaccination, completion of the primary series, and booster vaccination. By summarizing and comparing the reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the European Medicines Agency, this analysis aims to support in-formed decision-making by the lay public and help overcome vaccine hesitancy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 24 records reporting solicited adverse events for AZD1222, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, NVX-Cov2373, and VLA2001 in individuals aged 16 or older. Network meta-analyses were conducted for each solicited adverse events reported for at least two vaccines that were not compared head-to-head but could be connected through a common comparator. RESULTS: A total of 56 adverse events were investigated through network meta-analyses within a Bayesian framework with random-effects models. Overall, the two mRNA vaccines were found to be the most reactogenic vaccines. VLA2001 had the highest likelihood of being the least reactogenic vaccine after the first and second vaccine dose, especially for systemic adverse events after the first dose. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced chance of experiencing an adverse event with some COVID-19 vaccines may help to overcome vaccine hesitancy in population groups with concerns about the side effects of vaccines.

Patient preferences for features of HER2-targeted treatment of advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a discrete-choice experiment study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to quantify patients' benefit-risk preferences for attributes associated with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted breast cancer treatments and estimate minimum acceptable benefits (MABs), denominated in additional months of progression-free survival (PFS), for given treatment-related adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We conducted an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) among patients with self-reported advanced/metastatic breast cancer in the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan (N = 302). In a series of nine DCE questions, respondents chose between two hypothetical treatment profiles created by an experimental design. Profiles were defined by six attributes with varying levels: PFS, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, liver function problems, risk of heart failure, and risk of serious lung damage and infections. Data were analyzed using an error component random-parameters logit model. RESULTS: Among the attributes, patients placed the most importance on a change in PFS from 5 to 26 months; change from no diarrhea to severe diarrhea was the least important. Avoiding a 15% risk of heart failure had the largest MAB (5.8 additional months of PFS), followed by avoiding a 15% risk of serious lung damage and infections (4.6 months), possible severe liver function problems (4.2 months), severe nausea/vomiting (3.7 months), and severe diarrhea (2.3 months) compared with having none of the AEs. The relative importance of 21 additional months of PFS (increasing from 5 to 26 months) increased for women with HER2-negative disease and those with children. CONCLUSIONS: Patients valued PFS gain higher than the potential risk of AEs when deciding between hypothetical breast cancer treatments.

Real-world data of HER2-low metastatic breast cancer: A population based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of investigational human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting treatments, thorough understanding of breast cancer with different HER2 expression levels is critical. The aim of this study was to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer according to the level of HER2 expression. METHODS: Women with distant metastatic breast cancer during 2008-2016 were selected from PALGA, the Dutch Pathology Registry, and linked to the PHARMO Database Network. Breast cancer samples were categorised as HER2 immunohistochemistry score 0 (IHC0), HER2-low or HER2+. RESULTS: Among women with hormone receptor (HR) positive metastatic breast cancer (n = 989), 373 (38%) cancers were HER2 IHC0, 472 (48%) were HER2-low and 144 (15%) were HER2+. Among HR negative patients (n = 272), the proportion of HER2 IHC0, HER2-low and HER2+ was 110 (40%), 104 (38%) and 58 (21%) respectively. Within the HR + cohort, patients with HER2 IHC0 or HER2-low cancer were significantly older compared to HER2+ patients. This age difference was not seen in the HR-cohort. The localisation of distant metastases differed significantly between HER2 IHC0 or HER2-low versus HER2+ cases. Survival rates did not differ markedly by subtypes. CONCLUSION: Substantial proportion of patients had a HER2-low breast cancer. No clear differences in survival were found when comparing HER2 and HR status. Getting more granular insights in the level of HER2 expression and addressing HER2-low as a separate category could help to assess the impact of emerging treatment strategies. Therefore, more detailed information on HER2 expression should be routinely reported.

A Comparison of Seven Oncology External Control Arm Case Studies: Critiques From Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Agencies.

OBJECTIVES: The development of accelerated approval programs for high morbidity and unmet need conditions has driven the use of single-arm studies in drug development. Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are recognizing that high-quality external control arms (ECAs), built using real-world data, can reduce uncertainties arising from single-arm studies. This review compared 7 case studies of regulatory and HTA agencies' evaluations of oncology ECAs. METHODS: Food and Drug Administration multidisciplinary reviews for oncology submissions from 2014 to 2021 were screened to identify 7 cases (2 blinatumomab indications, avelumab, and erdafitinib, entrectinib, trastuzumab deruxtecan, and idecabtagene vicleucel) with ECAs to support efficacy claims. Regulatory (Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada) and HTA (pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Federal Joint Committee, Haute Autorité de Santé, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) submissions for these cases were reviewed. The decision makers' ECA critiques and the level of influence on the decision were analyzed and categorized. RESULTS: Across case studies, selection bias and confounding were the most common ECA critiques. Nevertheless, agreement in critiques between and among regulators and HTA bodies was low. ECA influence on agencies' decisions also varied. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating the same ECA evidence, agencies focused on methodologic issues (ie, selection bias and confounding), but were often not aligned on their critiques. Further research is needed to fully characterize how agencies evaluate ECAs. This study is a first step in critically evaluating agencies' critiques of ECAs and highlights the need for future guidance development around ECA design and generation.

The Impact of Patent Expiry on Drug Prices: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of patent expiry on drug prices by means of a systematic literature review. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed to identify all published literature on the impact of patent expiration on drug prices. Additional literature was identified using a less distinct syntax in Google Scholar and EconLit. Data extraction followed a standardized assessment form containing the domains study type, study aim, reported outcomes, number of drugs and drug classes assessed, and originators or generics assessed. RESULTS: The 16 identified studies that assessed impact of patent expiry on drug prices showed that price developments after patent expiration varied between countries. The included studies assessed price developments for the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and France, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The number of drugs included within different studies ranged between 1 and 219. The identified studies indicated that drug prices decreased significantly after patent expiry with drug price ratios ranging from 6.6 to 66% 1-5 years after patent expiry. CONCLUSION: Drug prices decrease significantly after patent expiry. The extent of this price reduction varied greatly between products and countries. For this reason, country-specific analyses on price developments after patent expiry should be used when these are considered in decision making. Future research should be dedicated to gathering more country-specific data to reduce the uncertainty with regard to price developments.