How Do People with Experience of Infertility Value Different Aspects of Assistive Reproductive Therapy? Results from a Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Assistive reproductive therapies can help those who have difficulty conceiving but different forms of assistive reproductive therapies are associated with different treatment characteristics. We undertook a large, multinational discrete choice experiment to understand patient preferences for assistive reproductive therapies. METHODS: We administered an online discrete choice experiment with persons who had experience with subfertility or assistive reproductive therapies in the USA, UK, the Nordic region (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland), Spain, and China. Attributes encouraged trade-offs between effectiveness, risk of adverse effects, treatment (dis)comfort, (in)convenience, cost per cycle and shared decision making. We used multinomial logit and mixed-logit models to estimate preferences and attribute importance by country/region, and estimated willingness to pay for changes in attribute levels. RESULTS: A total of 7565 respondents participated. Mixed logit had a better fit than multinomial logit across all samples. Preferences moved in expected directions across all samples, but the relative importance of attributes differed between countries. Willingness to pay was greatest for improvements in effectiveness and a greater degree of shared decision making, and we observe a substantial 'option value' independent of treatment characteristics. Unexpectedly, preferences over cost were insignificant in the Chinese sample, limiting the use of willingness to pay in this sample. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents balanced concerns for effectiveness with other considerations, including the cost and (dis)comfort of treatment, and the degree of shared decision making, but there is also substantial option value independent of treatment characteristics, demonstrating value of assistive reproductive therapies to individuals with experience of subfertility. We hypothesise that price insensitivity in the Chinese sample may reflect a degree of social desirability bias.

Burden of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) - a systematic review of the epidemiology of primary and recurrent CDI.

BACKGROUND: Clostridioides difficile is a Gram-positive anaerobic bacterium, which causes Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). It has been recognised as a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections and a considerable threat to public health globally. This systematic literature review (SLR) summarises the current evidence on the epidemiology and clinical burden of CDI. METHODS: A SLR was conducted to identify CDI and recurrent CDI (rCDI) epidemiology studies, to evaluate patient and disease characteristics, incidence rates, epidemiological findings and risk factors. Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for English articles from 2009 to 2019. Included territories were the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, US, Canada, Australia, Japan and China. RESULTS: Of 11,243 studies identified, 165 fulfilled the selection criteria. An additional 20 studies were identified through targeted review of grey literature. The most widely reported findings were incidence and risk factors for CDI and rCDI. Among key studies reporting both healthcare-associated (HA-CDI) and community-associated CDI (CA-CDI) incidence rates for each country of interest, incidence rates per 10,000 patient days in the US were 8.00 and 2.00 for HA-CDI and CA-CDI, respectively. The highest incidence in Europe was reported in Poland (HA-CDI: 6.18 per 10,000 patient days, CA-CDI: 1.4 per 10,000 patient days), the lowest from the UK, at 1.99 per 10,000 patient days and 0.56 per 10,000 patient days for HA-CDI and CA-CDI, respectively. No clear trend for incidence over time emerged, with most countries reporting stable rates but some either a decrease or increase. Rates of recurrent CDI varied based on geographical setting. The rate of recurrence was lower in community-associated disease compared to healthcare-associated disease. Independent CDI risk factors identified common to both initial CDI and recurrent CDI included increasing age, antibiotic use, recent hospitalisation, and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use. In addition, leukocyte count, length of hospital stays, and Charlson comorbidity index score featured as statistically significant risk factors for recurrent CDI, but these are not reported among the most common statistically significant risk factors for initial CDI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable heterogeneity, evidence suggests substantial incidence of recurrent and primary CDI, even after considerable efforts in the last decade.

Is the public supportive and willing to pay for a national assistive reproductive therapies programme? Results from a multicountry survey.

OBJECTIVES: To understand attitudes towards infertility and willingness to pay (WTP) towards a publicly funded national assistive reproductive therapies (ART) programme. DESIGN: Attitudes survey with dichotomous and open-ended WTP questions. SETTING: Online survey administered in the USA, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and China. PARTICIPANTS: 7945 respondents, analysed by country. Nordic respondents were pooled into a regionally representative sample. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were proportion of sample agreeing with different infertility-related and ART-related value statements and supporting a monthly contribution to fund a national ART programme, expressed in local currency. Secondary outcome measure was maximum WTP. RESULTS: Across the nationally representative samples, 75.5% of all respondents agreed with infertility as a medical condition and 82.3% and 83.7% with ART eligibility for anyone who has difficulty having a baby or a medical problem preventing them from having a baby, respectively. 56.4% of respondents supported a defined monthly contribution and 73.9% supported at least some additional contribution to fund a national ART programme. Overall, converting to euros, median maximum WTP was €3.00 and mean was €15.47 (95% CI 14.23 to 16.72) per month. Maximum WTP was highest in China and the USA and lowest in the European samples. CONCLUSIONS: This large, multicountry survey extends our understanding of public attitudes towards infertility and fertility treatment beyond Europe. It finds evidence that a majority of the public in all sampled countries/regions views infertility as a treatable medical condition and supports the idea that all infertile individuals should have access to treatments that improve the chance of conception. There was also strong agreement with the idea that the desire for children is a basic human need. WTP questions showed that a majority of respondents supported a monthly contribution to fund a national ART programme, although there is some evidence of an acquiescence bias that may overstate support among specific samples.

Lurasidone compared to other atypical antipsychotic monotherapies for adolescent schizophrenia: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

This network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and tolerability of lurasidone versus other oral atypical antipsychotic monotherapies in adolescent schizophrenia. A systematic literature review identified 13 randomized controlled trials of antipsychotics in adolescents with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. A Bayesian network meta-analysis compared lurasidone to aripiprazole, asenapine, clozapine, olanzapine, paliperidone extended-release (ER), quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone. Outcomes included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), weight gain, all-cause discontinuation, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and akathisia. Results were reported as median differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, along with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI). Lurasidone was significantly more efficacious than placebo on the PANSS (- 7.95, 95% CrI - 11.76 to - 4.16) and CGI-S (- 0.44, 95% CrI - 0.67 to - 0.22) scores. Lurasidone was associated with similar weight gain to placebo and statistically significantly less weight gain versus olanzapine (- 3.62 kg, 95% CrI - 4.84 kg to - 2.41 kg), quetiapine (- 2.13 kg, 95% CrI - 3.20 kg to - 1.08 kg), risperidone (- 1.16 kg, 95% CrI - 2.14 kg to - 0.17 kg), asenapine (- 0.98 kg, 95% CrI - 1.71 kg to - 0.24 kg), and paliperidone ER (- 0.85 kg, 95% CrI - 1.57 kg to - 0.14 kg). The odds of all-cause discontinuation were significantly lower for lurasidone than aripiprazole (OR = 0.28, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76) and paliperidone ER (OR = 0.25, 95% CrI 0.08-0.81) and comparable to other antipsychotics. Rates of EPS and akathisia were similar for lurasidone and other atypical antipsychotics. In this network meta-analysis of atypical antipsychotics in adolescent schizophrenia, lurasidone was associated with similar efficacy, less weight gain, and lower risk of all-cause discontinuation compared to other oral atypical antipsychotics.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of baricitinib versus adalimumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in Spain.

Background: Baricitinib is an oral janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is approved in Europe for use in adults with moderately-to-severely active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy. To date, no economic evaluations have assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib in the Spanish setting. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus adalimumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA in the Spanish setting. Methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed in Microsoft Excel. Costs and outcomes were estimated over a lifetime horizon using the Spanish national payer perspective. The model compared baricitinib 4 mg once daily in combination with methotrexate with adalimumab 40 mg every other week in combination with methotrexate. Effectiveness and physical function were captured using the American College of Rheumatology criteria and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, input values of which were derived from a phase 3, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial (RA-BEAM; funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01710358). Costs are presented in Euros, 2018 values. Results: In the base case analysis, baricitinib was associated with a quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.09 years over a lifetime horizon, at an incremental cost of -€558 versus adalimumab. Results of various scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis generally were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that baricitinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared to adalimumab for Spanish patients with moderately-to-severely active RA and a previous inadequate response or intolerance to csDMARD therapy.