Recent daily life burdens associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration involve difficulties in use of electronic devices.

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a prevalent cause of permanent vision loss and blindness in the elderly worldwide, with a significant impact on patients' daily lives. However, burdens related to nAMD from the patients' perspective have not been well documented. Here we developed a new questionnaire after eliciting nAMD patients' daily challenges followed by a pilot survey. Seven daily life burden domains were identified, and a quantitative survey was conducted using the questionnaire in the real-world clinic. Of the total 153 participants (mean age, 76.3 ± 8.3 years), 67 (43.8%) had bilateral nAMD, and 79 (52.7%) were classified into severe nAMD according to the best-corrected visual acuity with cut-off value of 0.52 in logMAR. Patients with bilateral and severe nAMD had significantly higher burden scores across all domains. Network models for the bilateral and severe disease subgroups identified the interactions between "activity of daily living" and "hand-eye coordination" and between "use of electronic devices" and "face recognition" domains, which were considered to be important burdens for the patients. These results can advance ophthalmologists' understanding of the impact of nAMD on patients' daily lives and the importance of active and continuing treatment for patients with nAMD.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of agomelatine for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in adult patients.

This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of agomelatine versus approved medications for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in adult patients. We selected randomized controlled trials on various medications used to treat GAD in adult patients. An existing systematic literature review (Kong et al., 2020) was used to identify relevant studies published before 2020. Outcomes of remission and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were analyzed, following a random-effects network meta-analysis approach. Of 25 identified studies, 20 and 22 studies were included in the network meta-analysis for studying the remission and discontinuation (due to AEs) outcomes, respectively. A statistically significant difference in the remission rate was observed between agomelatine and pregabalin [odds ratio (OR), 2.22; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-4.21]. For the other comparators, the results were nonsignificant; however, all the point estimates were in favor of agomelatine. Similarly, for discontinuation because of AEs, the point estimates leaned consistently toward agomelatine suggesting its higher tolerability. The probabilities of agomelatine having the highest remission rate and lowest discontinuation (due to AEs) rate were 67% and 68%, respectively. Based on its demonstrated effectiveness and tolerability, agomelatine can be considered as a drug of choice for the treatment of GAD.

Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review.

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A meta-analysis on 10 years of real-world data.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®), the first preventive treatment FDA-approved specifically for chronic migraine in 2010. METHODS: We systematically reviewed onabotulinumtoxinA observational data in chronic migraine published between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2021. Random-effects models evaluated available data for primary and secondary endpoints defined in onabotulinumtoxinA pivotal trials at approximately 24 weeks and 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 44 full-text eligible studies (29 prospective; 13 retrospective; 2 other), seven evaluated change from baseline (mean[confidence interval]) at ∼24 weeks and ∼52 weeks, respectively, for onabotulinumtoxinA in: number of headache days/month: (-10.64 [-12.31, -8.97]; -10.32 [-14.92, -5.73]); number of days of acute headache pain medication intake per month (-7.40 [-13.04, -1.77]; overlapping CIs at 52 weeks); total Headache Impact Test-6 score (-11.70 [-13.86, -9.54]); -11.80 [14.70, -8.90]); and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life v2.1 score (MSQ; 23.60 [CI: 21.56, 25.64]; 30.90 [CI: 28.29, 33.51]). At ∼24 weeks onabotulinumtoxinA showed total Migraine Disability Assessment score of 44.74 [28.50, 60.99] and ≥50% reduction in migraine days response rate of 46.57% [29.50%, 63.65%]. A sensitivity analysis at study-end suggested durability of onabotulinumtoxinA effectiveness on MSQ. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis reflecting real-world practice broadly corroborated with evidence from pivotal and long-term open-label studies of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine preventive treatment.

A systematic literature review of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: This review intends to provide an overview of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment (HTA) among the different agencies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2020. The studies were eligible for inclusion if they conducted a quantitative analysis of HTA's previous decisions for cancer drugs. The factors with p-values below the significance level of .05 were considered as the statistically significant factors for HTA decisions. RESULTS: A total of nine studies for six agencies in Australia, Belgium, France, South Korea, the UK, and Canada were eligible to be included. From the univariable analysis, improvements in clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were found as significant factors for the agencies in Belgium, South Korea, and Canada. From the multivariable analysis, cost-effectiveness was found as a positive factor for the agencies in the UK, South Korea, and Canada. Few factors related to characteristics of disease and technology were found to be significant among the included agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different drug reimbursement systems and the socioeconomic situations, cost-effectiveness and/or improvement on clinical outcomes seemed to be the most important factors for recommendations of cancer drugs among the agencies.

Pragmatic Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Combined With Advanced Pharmacoepidemiology for Benefit-Risk Assessments of Medicines Adapted to the Real-Life Constraints of Regulators: Development and Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) represents a promising method for benefit-risk assessment. Our goal was to develop features of pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM [Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking]) addressing real-life regulatory decision-making needs, incorporate advanced pharmacoepidemiology, and test the resulting benefit-risk framework using a case study. METHODS: The Intervention Outcomes domain of EVIDEM was transformed into a generic benefit-risk framework including clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse event (AE) criteria. The concept of relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB) was developed for comparability across products and therapeutic areas and over time. Evidence matrix was designed to include most relevant data from trials, observational studies, and models, including Bayesian and longitudinal modeling. The framework was tested with a panel of stakeholders using efalizumab for psoriasis as retrospective case study. Uncertainty was explored. RESULTS: The MCDA benefit-risk tree was adapted with psoriasis-specific subcriteria. Panelists assigned similar weights to benefits (0.48; SD, 0.20-0.70) and risks (0.52; SD, 0.10-0.60), with large variations reflecting diverse perspectives. Panelist scores reflected higher efficacy versus placebo, lower efficacy versus active comparators, and serious and fatal AEs identified postlicensing. Efalizumab's RBRB was positive at licensing in 2004 (0.29, scale -1 to +1) and ranged from -0.41 (vs active comparators) to 0.01 (vs placebo) in 2009, when its market authorization was withdrawn. Retesting indicated good reproducibility. Panelists acknowledged good face validity and the importance of criteria beyond benefit-risk in real-life assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The approach allows quantification and visualization of benefit-risk over time and across comparators. Combination of pragmatic MCDA designed to integrate criteria beyond benefit-risk and advanced statistics supports application of MCDA to further accountable benefit-risk assessments for real-life decision making.

Critical issues on the use of network meta-analysis in psychiatry.

The need to support clinical decision making and cost-effectiveness analyses in medicine, despite a dearth of head-to-head treatment comparisons, has encouraged the development of methods enabling indirect comparisons of treatment alternatives, including network meta-analysis (NMA). Valid application of NMA requires close similarity of compared trials, including their design, patient characteristics, and methods of diagnosis and symptomatic assessment. When biological or other objective measures of outcomes are not available, as is the case in psychiatric disorders, subtle differences in characteristics of trials or participants may lead to unrecognized incoherence within a network and thus to inconsistent results. By considering comparative-efficacy analyses of psychotropic drugs in major psychiatric disorders as working examples, we underscore the risks of violating the fundamental transitivity assumption in the context of NMA and suggest precautions for creating a coherent network. We conclude that with thoughtful and critical application, NMA can add useful information concerning the comparative benefits, risks, and costs of specific treatments in psychiatry.