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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in Clostridium difficile infection.

OBJECTIVES: Fidaxomicin was non-inferior to vancomycin with respect to clinical cure rates in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) in two Phase III trials, but was associated with significantly fewer recurrences than vancomycin. This economic analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in patients with severe CDI and in patients with their first CDI recurrence. METHODS: A 1 year time horizon Markov model with seven health states was developed from the perspective of Scottish public healthcare providers. Model inputs for effectiveness, resource use, direct costs and utilities were obtained from published sources and a Scottish expert panel. The main model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for fidaxomicin versus vancomycin; ICERs were interpreted using willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Total costs were similar with fidaxomicin and vancomycin in patients with severe CDI (£14,515 and £14,344, respectively) and in patients with a first recurrence (£16,535 and £16,926, respectively). Improvements in clinical outcomes with fidaxomicin resulted in small QALY gains versus vancomycin (severe CDI, +0.010; patients with first recurrence, +0.019). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective in severe CDI (ICER £16,529/QALY) and dominant (i.e. more effective and less costly) in patients with a first recurrence. The probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY was 60% for severe CDI and 68% in a first recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin is cost-effective in patients with severe CDI and in patients with a first CDI recurrence versus vancomycin.

Clinical efficacy of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin and metronidazole in Clostridium difficile infections: a meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of fidaxomicin treatment, which has a limited effect on the normal gut flora, compared with vancomycin and metronidazole treatment in Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in July to August 2011 and updated in July 2013. For fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, efficacy was evaluated using meta-analysis of data from two Phase III direct comparative studies (n = 1164). As there were no studies comparing fidaxomicin and metronidazole, an indirect comparison was made using data from three vancomycin versus metronidazole studies (n = 345), using the methodology of Bucher et al. (J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-91). This provides an OR for the indirect comparison of fidaxomicin versus metronidazole when direct evidence of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin and vancomycin versus metronidazole is available. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates were similar for fidaxomicin and vancomycin; the OR (95% CI) was 1.17 (0.82, 1.66). Recurrence [0.47 (0.34, 0.65)] was significantly lower and sustained cure rates [1.75 (1.35, 2.27)] significantly higher for fidaxomicin than vancomycin. Similar results were obtained in patient subgroups with severe CDI and with non-severe CDI. From the indirect comparison, the likelihood of recurrence [0.42 (0.18, 0.96)] and sustained cure [2.55 (1.44, 4.51)] were significantly improved for fidaxomicin versus metronidazole. Again, similar results were obtained in those with severe and non-severe CDI. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin provides improved sustained cure rates in patients with CDI compared with vancomycin. An indirect comparison indicates that the same is also true for fidaxomicin versus metronidazole. In view of these data, fidaxomicin may be considered as first-line therapy for CDI.

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections.

BACKGROUND: Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article. RESULTS: In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the 'willingness-to-pay' threshold of £30,000.