Health state utility values in major depressive disorder treated with pharmacological interventions: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with decreased patient well-being and symptoms that can cause substantial impairments in patient functioning and even lead to suicide. Worldwide, MDD currently causes the second-most years lived with disability and is predicted to become the leading cause of disability by 2030. Utility values, capturing patient quality of life, are required in economic evaluations for new treatments undergoing reimbursement submissions. We aimed to identify health state utility values (HSUVs) and disutilities in MDD for use in future economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, plus gray literature, were searched from January 1998 to December 21, 2018, with no language or geographical restrictions, for relevant studies that reported HSUVs and disutilities for patients with MDD receiving pharmacological interventions. RESULTS: 443 studies were identified; 79 met the inclusion criteria. We focused on a subgroup of 28 articles that reported primary utility data from 16 unique studies of MDD treated with pharmacological interventions. HSUVs were elicited using EQ-5D (13/16, 81%; EQ-5D-3L: 11/16, 69%; EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L not specified: 2/16), EQ-VAS (5/16, 31%), and standard gamble (1/16, 6%). Most studies reported baseline HSUVs defined by study entry criteria. HSUVs for a first or recurrent major depressive episode (MDE) ranged from 0.33 to 0.544 and expanded from 0.2 to 0.61 for patients with and without painful physical symptoms, respectively. HSUVs for an MDE with inadequate treatment response ranged from 0.337 to 0.449. Three studies reported HSUVs defined by MADRS or HAMD-17 clinical thresholds. There was a large amount of heterogeneity in patient characteristics between the studies. One study reported disutility estimates associated with treatment side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Published HSUVs in MDD, elicited using methods accepted by health technology assessment bodies, are available for future economic evaluations. However, the evidence base is limited, and it is important to select appropriate HSUVs for the intervention being evaluated and that align with clinical health state definitions used within an economic model. Future studies are recommended to elicit HSUVs for new treatments and their side effects and add to the existing evidence where data are lacking.

Comparative Efficacy of Treatments for Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: New therapies, including daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DRd) and daratumumab plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (DVd), have recently been approved in the United States for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least 1 prior line of therapy. However, few treatments have been compared in head-to-head clinical trials to determine the most efficacious therapy. In an update of the POLLUX (Phase 3 Study Comparing DRd Versus Rd in Subjects with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma [RRMM]) trial, median progression-free survival (PFS) for DRd was not reached; the hazard ratio compared with Rd was 0.41. In an update of the CASTOR (Phase 3 Study Comparing DVd Versus Vd in Subjects with RRMM) trial, median PFS for DVd was 16.7 months, compared with 7.1 months for Vd with a PFS hazard ratio of 0.31. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate the relative efficacy of treatments for previously treated patients with MM. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BioSciences Information Service, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted from initiation to September 2016. Abstracts published by international congresses (2014-2016) and bibliographies of pertinent systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also searched. Eligible studies consisted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or long-term follow-up studies with >1 treatment arm assessing the efficacy or safety of MM therapies. An NMA was conducted by using Bayesian fixed effect mixed-treatment comparisons. Outcomes considered were hazard ratios for PFS and odds ratios for overall response rate (ORR). FINDINGS: In total, 108 articles reporting 27 RCTs were included in the NMA. Data formed 2 evidence networks: RCTs with DRd and RCTs with DVd. Primary analysis of PFS found that DRd and DVd had a higher probability of being the best treatments (probability, 0.997 and 0.999, respectively) and had the lowest risk of progression or death than other treatments approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of MM. Results from sensitivity analyses using time to progression as a proxy for missing PFS data were consistent. DRd and DVd also showed improved ORR compared with other treatments. Subgroup analyses of PFS in patients treated with only 1 prior therapy were like the results of the primary analyses. IMPLICATIONS: This NMA provides comparative efficacy for MM treatments not studied in head-to-head RCTs. The NMA suggests that, compared with other approved MM treatments in the United States, DRd and DVd have a higher probability of providing the longest PFS in patients who have received at least 1 prior therapy and in patients who have received only 1 prior therapy.