Net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in atrial fibrillation: Results from ROCKET AF.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the net clinical benefit (NCB) of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 14,236 patients included in ROCKET AF who received at least one dose of study drug. We analyzed NCB using four different methods: (1) composite of death, stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding; (2) method 1 with fatal or critical organ bleeding substituted for major bleeding; (3) difference between the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism minus 1.5 times the difference between the rate of intracranial hemorrhage; and (4) weighted sum of differences between rates of death, ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, and major bleeding. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism (rate difference per 10,000 patient-years [RD]=-86.8 [95% CI -143.6 to -30.0]) and fatal or critical organ bleeding (-41.3 [-68 to -14.7]). However, rivaroxaban was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding other than fatal or critical organ bleeding (55.9 [14.7 to 97.2]). Method 1 showed no difference between treatments (-35.5 [-108.4 to 37.3]). Methods 2-4 favored treatment with rivaroxaban (2: -96.8 [-157.0 to -36.8]; 3: -65.2 [-112.3 to -17.8]; 4: -54.8 [-96.0 to -10.2]). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was associated with favorable NCB compared with warfarin. The NCB was attributable to lower rates of ischemic events and fatal or critical organ bleeding.

Physician and patient benefit-risk preferences from two randomized long-acting injectable antipsychotic trials.

PURPOSE: To quantify clinical trial participants' and investigators' judgments with respect to the relative importance of efficacy and safety attributes of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia, and to assess the impact of formulation and adherence. METHODS: Discrete-choice experiment surveys were completed by patients with schizophrenia and physician investigators participating in two phase-3 clinical trials of paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic. Respondents were asked to choose between hypothetical antipsychotic profiles defined by efficacy, safety, and mode of administration. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and probit models. RESULTS: Patients (N=214) and physicians (N=438) preferred complete improvement in positive symptoms (severe to none) as the most important attribute, compared with improvement in any other attribute studied. Both respondents preferred 3-month and 1-month injectables to oral formulation (P<0.05), irrespective of prior adherence to oral antipsychotic treatment, with physicians showing greater preference for a 3-month over a 1-month LAI for nonadherent patients. Physicians were willing to accept treatments with reduced efficacy for patients with prior poor adherence. The maximum decrease in efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI]) that physicians would accept for switching a patient from daily oral to 3-month injectable was as follows: adherent: 9.8% (95% CI: 7.2-12.4), 20% nonadherent: 25.4% (95% CI: 21.0-29.9), and 50% nonadherent: >30%. For patients, adherent: 10.1% (95% CI: 6.1-14.1), nonadherent: the change in efficacy studied was regarded as unimportant. CONCLUSION: Improvement in positive symptoms was the most important attribute. Patients and physicians preferred LAIs over oral antipsychotics, with physicians showing a greater preference for 3-month over 1-month LAI. Physicians and patients were willing to accept reduced efficacy in exchange for switching a patient from an oral formulation to a LAI.

Benefit-Risk Evaluation and Decision Making: Some Practical Insights.

Pharmaceutical drugs and devices are increasingly evaluated by quantitative tools that combine benefit and risk. These tools vary by their limitations and desirable properties, which may confuse the decision-making process. Experts from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and industry shared their perspectives at the 2012 American Statistical Association (ASA) Biopharmaceutical Section FDA-Industry Statistics Workshop, and these insights are presented here. First, benefit-risk terminology is given to better understand subtle distinctions. Next, pragmatic considerations in endpoint selection are given that distinguish between benefit-risk assessment and analysis of clinical trials. Then the strengths of weighting methods, including ranking, utilities, and risk tolerance for assessing the trade-off between benefits and risks, are compared. The last topic presented is summarizing information to ease the interpretation, transparency, and ability to support decisions. Benefit-risk methods are moving towards a unified paradigm to make selection of endpoints, weights, and metrics easier and more structured. This will lead to better decision-making based on a transparent assessment and clear interpretability.

Psychiatrists' judgments about antipsychotic benefit and risk outcomes and formulation in schizophrenia treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to quantify psychiatrists' judgments of the benefits and risks of antipsychotic treatments of patients with schizophrenia and to evaluate how patient adherence history affects these judgments. METHODS: Weights assigned by respondents to risks, benefits, and alternative drug formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia were assessed via a Web-based survey by using a discrete-choice experiment. Respondents in the United States and the United Kingdom chose among alternative scenarios characterized by various levels of improvement in positive symptoms, negative symptoms, social functioning, weight gain, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), hyperprolactinemia, and hyperglycemia and by formulation. The effect of patient adherence history on respondents' judgments was also assessed. Random-parameters logit and bivariate probit models were estimated. RESULTS: The sample included 394 psychiatrists. Improvement in positive symptoms from "no improvement" to "very much improved" was the most preferred outcome over the range of improvements included and was assigned a relative importance score of 10. Other outcomes, in decreasing order of importance, were improvement in negative symptoms from "no improvement" to "very much improved" (5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]=4.2-6.2), social functioning from "severe problems" to "mild problems" (4.6, CI=3.8-5.4), no hyperglycemia (1.9, CI=1.5-2.4), <15% weight gain (1.5, CI=.9-2.0), no hyperprolactinemia (1.3, CI=.8-1.6), and no EPS (1.1, CI=.7-1.5). As adherence decreased, formulation became more important than modest efficacy changes and injections were preferred to daily pills (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrists favored treatments that primarily improve positive symptoms. Choice of formulation became more important as likely adherence declined.