A systematic literature review comparing methods for the measurement of patient persistence and adherence.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature review was conducted comparing different approaches estimating persistence and adherence in chronic diseases with polypharmacy of oral and subcutaneous treatments. METHODS: This work followed published guidance on performing systematic reviews. Twelve electronic databases and grey literature sources were used to identify studies and guidelines for persistence and adherence of oral and subcutaneous therapies in hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Outcomes of interest of each persistence and adherence data collection and calculation method included pros: accurate, easy to use, inexpensive; and cons: inaccurate, difficult to use, expensive. RESULTS: A total of 4158 records were retrieved up to March 2017. We included 16 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews and 7 guidelines, in patients with hypercholesterolemia (n = 8), type 2 diabetes (n = 4), hypertension (n = 2), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1) and mixed patient populations (n = 13). Pharmacy and medical records offer an accurate, easy and inexpensive data collection method. Pill count, medication event monitoring systems (MEMs), self-report questionnaires and observer report are easy to use. MEMS and biochemical monitoring tests can be expensive. Proportion of days covered (PDC) was recommended as a gold standard calculation method for long-term treatments. PDC avoids use of days' supply in calculation, hence is more accurate compared to medication possession ratio (MPR) to assess adherence to treatments in chronic diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions on what method to use should be based on considerations of the route of medication administration, the resources available, setting and aim of the assessment. Combining different methods may provide wider insights into adherence and persistence, including patient behavior.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Evolocumab and Other Therapies for the Management of Lipid Levels in Hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab substantially reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) when added to statin therapy in patients who need additional LDL-C reduction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials of lipid-lowering therapies from database inception through August 2016 (45 058 records retrieved). We found 69 trials of lipid-lowering therapies that enrolled patients requiring further LDL-C reduction while on maximally tolerated medium- or high-intensity statin, of which 15 could be relevant for inclusion in LDL-C reduction networks with evolocumab, alirocumab, ezetimibe, and placebo as treatment arms. PCSK9 inhibitors significantly reduced LDL-C by 54% to 74% versus placebo and 26% to 46% versus ezetimibe. There were significant treatment differences for evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 versus placebo (-74.1%; 95% credible interval -79.81% to -68.58%), alirocumab 75 mg (-20.03%; 95% credible interval -27.32% to -12.96%), and alirocumab 150 mg (-13.63%; 95% credible interval -22.43% to -5.33%) at ≥12 weeks. Treatment differences were similar in direction and magnitude for PCSK9 inhibitor monthly dosing. Adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors and control. Rates of adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors versus placebo or ezetimibe. CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9 inhibitors added to medium- to high-intensity statin therapy significantly reduce LDL-C in patients requiring further LDL-C reduction. The network meta-analysis showed a significant treatment difference in LDL-C reduction for evolocumab versus alirocumab.

A systematic review to assess adherence and persistence with statins.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess studies published over a 10 year period up to February 2016 which measure adherence or persistence with statins, to summarize their methods, strengths and weaknesses and to summarize evidence linking statin adherence/persistence with risk of cardiovascular events. METHODS: Electronic databases and abstracts from four major cardiovascular disease conferences were searched from January 2005 to February 2016. The study selection process was performed by two reviewers working independently. Studies were included if they reported data regarding patient adherence or persistence with statins in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia, using any type of study design or length of follow-up. One reviewer extracted the study data and assessed study quality, which was checked by a second reviewer independently. Given the heterogeneity between the included studies a narrative critique and summary is presented. RESULTS: We report on 84 real world studies which aimed to assess adherence or persistence with statins. The majority of studies concluded that good adherence/persistence was associated with reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality. In two studies high intensity statin regimens were associated with poorer patient adherence when compared to low intensity statins. Adherence and persistence with statin therapy also has an impact on hospitalization costs and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence and persistence are associated with a reduction in CVD events and mortality. There was limited evidence to suggest that high intensity statin regimens are associated with poorer treatment adherence when compared to lower intensity regimens. Hence, more robust studies are required to establish this association. As recommended by the 2013 ACC/AHA, 2016 ESC and several other clinical guidelines, clinicians and pharmacy managers should regularly monitor statin therapy adherence.

A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Outcomes-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lipid-Lowering Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Previous reviews have evaluated economic analyses of lipid-lowering therapies using lipid levels as surrogate markers for cardiovascular disease. However, drug approval and health technology assessment agencies have stressed that surrogates should only be used in the absence of clinical endpoints. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the methodologies, weaknesses and strengths of economic models based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of lipid-lowering therapies using cardiovascular event rates in adults with hyperlipidaemia were sought in Medline, Embase, Medline In-Process, PubMed and NHS EED and conference proceedings. Search results were independently screened, extracted and quality checked by two reviewers. RESULTS: Searches until February 2016 retrieved 3443 records, from which 26 studies (29 publications) were selected. Twenty-two studies evaluated secondary prevention (four also assessed primary prevention), two considered only primary prevention and two included mixed primary and secondary prevention populations. Most studies (18) based treatment-effect estimates on single trials, although more recent evaluations deployed meta-analyses (5/10 over the last 10 years). Markov models (14 studies) were most commonly used and only one study employed discrete event simulation. Models varied particularly in terms of health states and treatment-effect duration. No studies used a systematic review to obtain utilities. Most studies took a healthcare perspective (21/26) and sourced resource use from key trials instead of local data. Overall, reporting quality was suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals methodological changes over time, but reporting weaknesses remain, particularly with respect to transparency of model reporting.

The relationship between Lp(a) and CVD outcomes: a systematic review.

Robust associations between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and CVD outcomes among general populations have been published in previous studies. However, associations in high risk primary prevention and secondary prevention populations are less well defined. In order to investigate this further, a systematic review was performed including prospective studies, which assessed the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD outcomes using multivariable analyses. Additional information was gathered on Lp(a) assays, multivariable modelling and population characteristics. Literature searches from inception up to December 2015 retrieved 2850 records. From these 60 studies were included. Across 39 primary prevention studies in the general population (hazard ratios ranged from 1.16 to 2.97) and seven high risk primary prevention studies (hazard ratios ranged from 1.01 to 3.7), there was evidence of a statistically significant relationship between increased Lp(a) and an increased risk of future CVD. Results in 14 studies of secondary prevention populations were also suggestive of a modest statistically significant relationship (hazard ratios ranged from 0.75 to 3.7).Therefore current evidence would suggest that increased Lp(a) levels are associated with modest increases in the risk of future CVD events in both general and higher risk populations. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Dose efficiency of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) increase red blood cell production in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). In Europe, short-acting ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, epoetin zeta, and epoetin theta) and a long-acting ESA (darbepoetin alfa) are available to treat CIA. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to determine potential dose efficiency associated with the use of different ESAs for the treatment of CIA according to European labeling. METHODS: A systematic review of ESA studies with starting doses according to European labeling was conducted according to published methodology. Measures of dose efficiency were defined as mean weekly doses to achieve target hemoglobin level or final dose and dose adjustments (dose increase, decrease, or withheld). Electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched up to July 2012. Data were selected for analysis using an evidence hierarchy and quantitatively analyzed to assess statistical homogeneity. Where pooling of data was not appropriate, a narrative summary with descriptive statistics (medians and ranges) was reported. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies considered to represent the highest level of evidence were extracted and included in the analysis. The analysis showed a high degree of statistical heterogeneity, often precluding meta-analysis. The patients included in the analysis were representative of those encountered in clinical practice, and patient characteristics were similar between the short-acting and the darbepoetin alfa groups. Mean weekly doses appeared ~30% lower with darbepoetin alfa versus short-acting ESAs (median, 136.5 µg or 27,300 IU [range, 21,560-38,260 IU] vs 38,230 IU [range, 31,634-42,714 IU], respectively), resulting in a mean weekly dose ratio of 1:280. Darbepoetin alfa patients appeared to need fewer dose increases compared with short-acting ESAs (pooled, 0.75%; I(2) = 21% vs median 26.6% [range, 7.6%-44.6%]) and more dose decreases (median, 74% [range, 57%-75%] vs 22% [range, 2.8%-59%]). A similar percentage of darbepoetin alfa and short-acting ESA patients required a dose to be withheld (20% and 33% [2 studies] vs median 33.2% [range, 12.6%-51.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: Statistical heterogeneity between studies was high, although clinically the studies represented medical practice. Without randomized clinical trials directly comparing darbepoetin alfa and short-acting ESAs, these findings are tentative and future research is warranted. This review shows that good-quality, reliable data from head-to-head trials are lacking. The best available evidence comes from prospective ESA-arm data. Mean weekly doses, dose increases, and dose decreases suggest a dose efficiency for darbepoetin alfa compared with short-acting ESAs.

Systematic review of lapatinib in combination with letrozole compared with other first-line treatments for hormone receptor positive(HR+) and HER2+ advanced or metastatic breast cancer(MBC).

BACKGROUND: Third-generation aromatase inhibitors (letrozole, anastrozole) have shown superior efficacy in early and advanced breast cancer compared with tamoxifen. For HR+, HER2+ MBC, combination of an AI with an anti-HER2 agent (lapatinib or trastuzumab) has shown clinical benefit. METHODS: Six databases were searched until January 2009 for randomized controlled clinical trials, assessing the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for postmenopausal women with HR+ and HER2 (ErbB2) positive MBC, who have not received prior therapy for advanced or metastatic disease. Relevant interventions were lapatinib, aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, and trastuzumab. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), time-to-progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Eighteen studies (62 papers) were included. Lapatinib + letrozole was significantly superior to letrozole alone based on a direct head-to-head study in terms of PFS/TTP and ORR. Using a network meta-analysis, compared with lapatinib + letrozole, tamoxifen (HR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.65) and anastrozole (HR = 0.53 (0.36, 0.80)) scored significantly worse in terms of PFS/TTP and ORR (tamoxifen: OR = 0.25 (0.12, 0.53), anastrozole: OR = 0.27 (0.12, 0.58). The combination also seemed significantly superior to exemestane in terms of PFS/TTP (HR = 0.52 (0.34, 0.79)). Lapatinib + letrozole also seemed better, although not significantly, in terms of OS versus tamoxifen: HR = 0.74 (0.49, 1.12), anastrozole: HR = 0.71 (0.45, 1.14) and exemestane: HR = 0.65 (0.39, 1.11). When compared with trastuzumab + anastrozole, lapatinib + letrozole seemed to be better in terms of OS (HR = 0.85 (0.47, 1.54)), PFS/TTP (HR = 0.89 (0.54, 1.47)) and ORR (OR = 0.92 (0.24, 3.48)), although, none of these results were significant. DISCUSSION: Lapatinib + letrozole was significantly superior to letrozole in terms of PFS/TTP and ORR based on a direct head-to-head study. Indirect comparisons appeared to favor lapatinib + letrozole versus other first-line treatments used in this patient population in terms of three main outcomes: OS, PFS/TTP and ORR. Indirect comparison results are based on a network analysis for which the basic assumptions of homogeneity, similarity and consistency were not fulfilled. Therefore, despite the fact that these are the best available data, the results need to be interpreted with caution.

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

BACKGROUND: World-wide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Increasing the uptake of screening, alongside increasing informed choice is of great importance in controlling this disease through prevention and early detection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical cancer screening. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 1, 2009. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to March 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical cancer screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, counselling, risk factor assessment and procedural interventions. Heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, however, invitations appear to be effective methods of increasing uptake. In addition, there is limited evidence to support the use of educational materials. Secondary outcomes including cost data were incompletely documented so evidence was limited. Most trials were at moderate risk of bias. Informed uptake of cervical screening was not reported in any trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. There is limited evidence to support educational interventions but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies are from developed countries and so the relevance to developing countries is unclear.