Indirect treatment comparison of lurbinectedin versus other second-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Compare lurbinectedin versus other second-line (2L) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments. Methods: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison connected the platinum-sensitive SCLC cohort of a single-arm lurbinectedin trial to a network of three randomized controlled trials (oral and intravenous [IV] topotecan, and platinum re-challenge) identified by systematic literature review. Network meta-analysis methods estimated relative treatment effects. Results: In platinum-sensitive patients, lurbinectedin demonstrated a survival benefit and favorable safety profile versus oral and IV topotecan and platinum re-challenge (overall survival, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.27, 0.67; HR: 0.43; 95% CrI: 0.26, 0.70; HR: 0.42; 95% CrI: 0.30, 0.58 respectively). Conclusion: Lurbinectedin showed a robust survival benefit and favorable safety versus other SCLC treatments in 2L platinum-sensitive SCLC.

A model of mild hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact associated with mild hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in the United States and to identify risk factors among different subpopulations. METHODS: We performed a literature search to gather available data allowing estimation of rates of mild hypoglycemia. Because risk factors are interdependent, risk factors included in the model were based on those reported within multivariate analyses or judged to be biologically plausible by the medical community. Based on literature search results, we built a mathematical model predicting the rates of mild hypoglycemia in individual patients as a function of the patient's antidiabetic medications, hemoglobin A1c levels, duration of diabetes, kidney function, and body mass index. RESULTS: We estimated an overall average rate of mild hypoglycemia among US patients with T2DM of 2.2 ± 0.8 events per person per year. Patients taking oral antidiabetic medications only had an average rate of 1.9 ± 0.8 events per person per year. The average rate for all patients taking insulin, including those combining it with other antidiabetic medications, was 4.9 ± 2.0 events per person per year. Mild hypoglycemia rates increased with age, with 80-year-old patients experiencing 1.5 times the risk of 40-year-old patients. Based on published values for direct and indirect medical costs for mild hypoglycemia events, we determined that the economic impact in the US of mild hypoglycemic events is approximately $900 million per year, roughly equal to that of severe hypoglycemic events. One of the key limitations to our model is that it applies to the US population under standard medical care and not to clinical trials and does not include certain known risk factors such as rigorous exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the benefit versus risk of glycemic control and hypoglycemia is fundamental to the successful management of patients with T2DM. Our validated hypoglycemia model is an important step in addressing this issue and may be helpful to researchers, clinicians, and payers to determine the patients who are at the highest risk for hypoglycemia, whether a patient is experiencing events at 'higher-than-expected' rates, and the corresponding economic burden.

Novel Simulation Model of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Platform for a Virtual Randomized Trial of Conservative Therapy vs. Cystectomy in BCG Refractory Patients.

Introduction: There have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical or economic benefit of mitomycin C intravesical therapy vs. radical cystectomy in patients with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). We used the Archimedes computational model to simulate RCT comparing radical cystectomy versus intravesical mitomycin C (MMC) therapy to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes for BCG-refractory NMIBC as well demonstrate the utility of computer based models to simulate a clinical trial. Methods: The Archimedes model was developed to generate a virtual population using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database, other clinical trials, and expert opinions. Patients selected were diagnosed with NMIBC (

Development of a disease registry for autoimmune bullous diseases: initial analysis of the pemphigus vulgaris subset.

Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is a rare, potentially life threatening, autoimmune blistering skin disease. The International Pemphigus and Pemphigoid Foundation (IPPF) has recently developed a disease registry with the aim to enhance our understanding of autoimmune bullous diseases with the long-term goal of acquiring information to improve patient care. Patients were recruited to the IPPF disease registry through direct mail, e-mail, advertisements, and articles in the IPPF-quarterly, -website, -Facebook webpage, and IPPF Peer Health Coaches to complete a 38-question survey. We present here the initial analysis of detailed clinical information collected on 393 PV patients. We report previously unrecognized gender differences in terms of lesion location, autoimmune comorbidity, and delay in diagnosis. The IPPF disease registry serves as a useful resource and guide for future clinical investigation.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of LDL particle-guided statin therapy: a simulation study.

We used the Archimedes Model, a mathematical simulation model (Model) to estimate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of using LDL particle concentration (LDL-P) as an adjunct or alternative to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) to guide statin therapy. LDL-P by NMR has been shown to be a better measure of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk than LDL-C, and may therefore be a better gauge of the need for and response to statin treatment. Using the Model, we conducted a virtual clinical trial comparing the use of LDL-C alone, LDL-P alone, and LDL-C and LDL-P together to guide treatment in the general adult population, and in high-risk, dyslipidemic subpopulations. In the general population, the 5-year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) relative risk reduction (RRR) of LDL-P alone compared to the control arm (LDL-C alone) was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.7-5.3; p < .0001); using both LDL-C and LDL-P (dual markers) led to 3.0% RRR compared to the control arm (95% CI, 2.8-3.3; p < .0001). For individuals with diabetes, the RRR was 7.3% (95% CI, 6.4-8.2; p < .0001) for LDL-P alone and 6.9% for dual markers (95% CI, 6.1-7.8; both, p < .0001). In the general population, the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with the use of LDL-P alone were $76,052 at 5 years and $8913 at 20 years and $142,825 at 5 years and $25,505 at 20 years with the use of both markers. In high-risk subpopulations, the use of LDL-P alone was cost-saving at 5 years; whereas the cost per QALY for the use of both markers was $14,250 at 5 years and $859 at 20 years for high-risk dyslipidemics, $19,192 at 5 years and $649 at 20 years for diabetics, and $9030 at 5 years and $7268 at 20 years for patients with prior CHD. In conclusion, the model estimates that using LDL-P to guide statin therapy may reduce the risk of CVD events to a greater extent than does the use of LDL-C alone and maybe cost-effective or cost-saving for high-risk patients.

Impact of switching treatment from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin on rates of cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Now that generic atorvastatin has become available, a process of switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin may occur and could persist until the patent on branded rosuvastatin expires. It is important to understand the impact that such therapy may have on patients' cardiovascular (CV) health. OBJECTIVES: This simulated study estimates the impact of switching patients treated with rosuvastatin to atorvastatin on rates of CV events over a 5-year period. METHODS: A study of 50,038 virtual dyslipidemic patients aged 45 to 70 years was conducted using the Archimedes model. Virtual patients were created based on the profiles of patients in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Statin treatment models were constructed based on data from published studies, including STELLAR, JUPITER, CARDS, ASCOT, and TNT. Patients were started on a dose of rosuvastatin based on their ATP III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal and the distributions of statin use observed in US pharmacy claims data. Patients were monitored for 5 years, during which time they received regular visits with the opportunity to increase their dosage if they were above their LDL-C goal. In the experimental arm, patients were switched from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin at the first clinic visit 6 weeks after initiating rosuvastatin (using an atorvastatin dose twice the rosuvastatin milligram-dose). No switching occurred in the control arm, and patients were titrated as necessary per ATP III cholesterol management guidelines. The rate of first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; myocardial infarction, stroke, and/or cardiovascular-related death) over the 5-year period was estimated for each study arm. RESULTS: After 5 years, in the atorvastatin-switched arm compared with continuing rosuvastatin, 4.8% fewer patients reached goal (87% vs 91%, respectively). The 5-year relative risk for MACE with switching was 1.109 (95% CI, 1.092-1.127), and the number needed to harm (NNH) to incur 1 additional MACE over 5 years was 262, favoring treatment with rosuvastatin. In diabetic individuals who were switched to atorvastatin, the 5-year relative risk for MACE was 1.121 (95% CI, 1.091-1.151), and the NNH over 5 years was 195, indicating greater risk in diabetic individuals. The results were insensitive to adherence rates and LDL-C goal values. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin led to fewer patients attaining LDL-C goal and a greater risk for MACE.