Comparative effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type-B inhibitors for Parkinson's disease: a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type-B (MAO-B) inhibitors available for treatment of Parkinson's disease. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search identifying randomized controlled trials investigating 4 dopamine agonists (cabergoline, pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine) and 3 MAO-B inhibitors (selegiline, rasagiline, safinamide) for Parkinson's disease. We extracted and pooled data from included clinical trials in a joint model allowing both direct and indirect comparison of the seven drugs. We considered dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors given as monotherapy or in combination with levodopa. Selected endpoints were change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score, serious adverse events and withdrawals. We estimated the relative effectiveness of each dopamine agonist and MAO-B inhibitor versus comparator drug. RESULTS: Altogether, 79 publications were included in the analysis. We found all the investigated drugs to be effective compared with placebo when given as monotherapy except safinamide. When considering combination treatment, the estimated relative effects of selegiline, pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine, cabergoline, rasagiline and safinamide were 2.316 (1.819, 2.951), 2.091 (1.889, 2.317), 2.037 (1.804, 2.294), 1.912 (1.716, 2.129), 1.664 (1.113, 2.418), 1.584 (1.379, 1.820) and 1.179 (1.031, 1.352), respectively, compared with joint placebo and levodopa treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dopamine agonists were found to be effective as treatment for Parkinson's disease, both when given as monotherapy and in combination with levodopa. Selegiline and rasagiline were also found to be effective for treating Parkinson's disease, and selegiline was the best option in combination with levodopa among all the drugs investigated.

HPV catch-up vaccination of young women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While prophylactic human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination is considered effective in young girls, it is unclear whether a catch-up vaccination of older girls would be beneficial. We, therefore, aimed to examine the potential health impact of a HPV catch-up vaccination of girls who were too old at the time of vaccine introduction, hence aged 16 and older. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of HPV vaccines on overall mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and higher (CIN2+), vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN) grade 2 and higher lesions (VIN2+ and VaIN2+, respectively) genital warts (condyloma). We considered all lesions and those associated with HPV type(s) included in the vaccines. RCTs reporting on serious adverse events were also eligible. Selected publications were assessed for potential risk of bias, and we ascertained the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analyses were performed, assuming both random and fixed effects, to estimate risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), using intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. RESULTS: We included 46 publications reporting on 13 RCTs. Most of the RCTs had a maximum follow-up period of four years. We identified no RCT reporting on the effect of HPV catch vaccination on overall and cancer related mortality, and on cervical cancer incidence. We found a borderline protective effect of a HPV catch-up vaccination on all CIN2+, with a pooled RR of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.62-1.02) for a follow-up period of 4 years. A HPV catch-up vaccination was associated with a reduction in VIN2+ and VaIN2+ lesions, and condyloma. No difference in risk of serious adverse events was seen in vaccinated participants versus unvaccinated women (pooled RR of 0.99 (0.91-1.08)). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that a HPV catch-up vaccination could be beneficial, however the long-term effect of such a vaccination, and its effect on cervical cancer incidence and mortality is still unclear.

Endpoints for relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical endpoints are defined as valid measures of clinical benefit or harm due to treatment, that describe the impact of treatment on how a patient feels, functions, and survives. The choice of endpoints and the manner in which they are reported have a major impact on the relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. The aim of this article is to describe the guideline development process and the key findings that set a framework for appropriate use of endpoints in REAs in Europe. METHODS: A multi-health technology assessment (HTA)-agency collaborative process in EUnetHTA JA1 was used to scope, draft, and finalize methodological guidelines for REA in Europe. RESULTS: Patient-relevant clinical endpoints can be broadly categorized into: mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life. A clinical endpoint is a main symptom or sign of a disease that is clinically relevant, valid, reproducible and responsive to change. Preference is for long-term or final endpoints whenever possible. Surrogate endpoints may be used when there is compelling evidence of a clear and consistent correlation of treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcome of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The relevance and hierarchy of the different types of clinical endpoints depend on the research question, disease, and the treatment investigated. Not only the primary endpoint, but also other relevant endpoints are assessed in comparison to adequate comparator(s). This simultaneous assessment of all relevant endpoints is a hallmark of REA.

New anticoagulants as thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Due to a high risk of thromboembolism in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, it has become standard practice to give thromboprophylactic treatment. We assessed the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two new oral anticoagulants, rivaroxaban and dabigatran, relative to subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of thromboembolism after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement surgery (TKR). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess efficacy and safety, and evaluated quality of documentation using GRADE. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by developing a decision model. The model combined two modules; a decision tree for the short-term prophylaxis and a Markov model for the long-term complications and survival gain. RESULTS: For rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin, we found statistically significant decreases in deep vein thrombosis, but also a trend toward increased risk of major bleeding. For mortality and pulmonary embolism there were no statistically significant differences between the treatments. We did not find statistically significant differences between dabigatran and enoxaparin for our efficacy and safety outcomes. Assuming a willingness to pay of EUR62,500 per QALY, rivaroxaban following THR had a probability of 38 percent, and enoxaparin following TKR had a probability of 34 percent of being cost-effective. Clinical efficacy had the greatest impact on decision uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban are comparable with enoxaparin following THR and TKR regarding the efficacy and safety outcomes. However, there is great uncertainty regarding which strategy is the most cost-effective. More research on clinical efficacy of rivaroxaban and dabigatran is likely to change our results.

Modeling the impact of screening policy and screening compliance on incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in the post-HPV vaccination era.

BACKGROUND: In Norway, pap smear screening target women aged 25-69 years on a triennial basis. The introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) mass immunization in 2009 raises questions regarding the cost-saving future changes to current screening strategies. METHODS: We calibrated a dynamic HPV transmission model to Norwegian data and assessed the impact of changing screening 20 or 30 years after vaccine introduction, assuming 60 or 90% vaccination coverage. Screening compliance among vaccinated women was assumed at 80 or 50%. Strategies considered: (i) 5-yearly screening of women of 25-69 years, (ii) 3-yearly screening of women of 30-69 years and (iii) 3-yearly screening of women of 25-59 years. RESULTS: Greatest health gains were accomplished by ensuring a high vaccine uptake. In 2060, cervical cancer incidence was reduced by an estimated 36-57% compared with that of no vaccination. Stopping screening at the age of 60 years, excluding opportunistic screening, increased cervical cancer incidence by 3% (2060) compared with maintaining the current screening strategy, resulting in 1.0-2.4% extra cancers (2010-2060). The 5-yearly screening strategy elevated cervical cancer incidence by 30% resulting in 4.7-11.3% additional cancers. CONCLUSION: High vaccine uptake in the years to come is of primary concern. Screening of young women <30 years remains important, even under the conditions of high vaccine coverage.

Interaction initiatives between regulatory, health technology assessment and coverage bodies, and industry.

There has been an increased focus on the relationship between health technology assessment (HTA) and regulatory assessments and how regulatory, HTA and coverage bodies, and industry can work better together to improve efficiency and alignment of processes. There is increasingly agreement across sectors that improved communication and coordination could contribute to facilitating timely patient access to effective, affordable treatments that offer value to the health system. Discussions on aspects of this relationship are being held in different forums and various forms of coordination and collaboration are being developed or piloted within several jurisdictions. It is therefore both timely and of value to stakeholders to describe and reflect on current initiatives intended to improve interactions between regulatory, HTA and coverage bodies, and industry. Drawing on 2011 meetings of the HTAi Policy Forum and the Center for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS), this study aims to describe and compare initiatives, and point to success factors and challenges that are likely to inform future work and collaboration.

Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are an important source of adverse effects data, including analyses in systematic reviews and recommendations in therapy guidelines. Trial publication bias may have profound effects on safety perceptions. This MiniReview presents and discusses biases in reporting of safety data in clinical trials and the implications for systematic reviews and guidelines. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this work are to analyse risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in systemic corticosteroid trials and to assess adverse effects reporting in a fluoxetine trial in depression (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study [TADS]) and descriptions of adverse effects in adolescent depression therapy guidelines. METHODS: We performed literature reviews and descriptive analyse of clinical trials with corticosteroids, and publications from the TADS trial. Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding from corticosteroids was analysed by meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Gastrointestinal bleeding definitions varied considerably between trials. The incidence was significantly increased in hospitalized, but not in ambulant, patients compared to placebo. We identified several biases concerning TADS safety reporting, including severity thresholds and nonpublication of most adverse effects data beyond the initial 12 weeks. Therapy guidelines on adolescent depression mentioned suicidality risk, but many failed to mention other adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several pitfalls in adverse effects reporting in clinical trials. These include heterogeneous disease definitions, reporting thresholds, and incomplete reporting. Trial bias may have great impact on risk assessments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Long-term follow-up of patients with resected pancreatic cancer following vaccination against mutant K-ras.

K-ras mutations are frequently found in adenocarcinomas of the pancreas and can elicit mutation-specific immune responses. Targeting the immune system against mutant Ras may thus influence the clinical course of the disease. Twenty-three patients who were vaccinated after surgical resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (22 pancreaticoduodenectomies, one distal resection), in two previous Phase I/II clinical trials, were followed for more than 10 years with respect to long-term immunological T-cell reactivity and survival. The vaccine was composed of long synthetic mutant ras peptides designed mainly to elicit T-helper responses. Seventeen of 20 evaluable patients (85%) responded immunologically to the vaccine. Median survival for all patients was 27.5 months and 28 months for immune responders. The 5-year survival was 22% and 29%, respectively. Strikingly, 10-year survival was 20% (four patients out of 20 evaluable) versus zero (0/87) in a cohort of nonvaccinated patient treated in the same period. Three patients mounted a memory response up to 9 years after vaccination. The present observation of long-term immune response together with 10-year survival following surgical resection indicates that K-ras vaccination may consolidate the effect of surgery and represent an adjuvant treatment option for the future.

Meta-regression analysis of paroxetine clinical trial data: does reporting scale matter?

OBJECTIVES: It is unknown to which degree the effect of antidepressant drugs are related to baseline degree of depression, dose level, patient's age, or type of questionnaire used. We explored this for paroxetine. METHODS: We used placebo-controlled published and unpublished randomized, double-blind, clinical trials of paroxetine that included moderate to severely depressed patients in an outpatient setting. We specified random-effect models for the Hamilton 17-item and Hamilton 21-item studies separately and jointly. RESULTS: Among 35 studies retrieved, we considered 26 appropriate for a pooled analysis. Paroxetine (placebo) was given to 2958 (2123) patients. We found that the effects of paroxetine, the differences between score reduction in drug versus placebo group, are smaller in Hamilton 17 (3.8%) than in Hamilton 21 studies (7.0%). The mean difference is 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 0.94%-5.42%), statistically significant by meta-regression analysis. Treatment effects did not change with mean age of patients, early or late studies, baseline score value, or maximal daily dose. CONCLUSIONS: We forward 2 hypotheses for explanation. The Hamilton 21 studies had better selection of patients, thereby smaller effect of regression to the mean than the Hamilton 17 studies, meaning the Hamilton 21 studies reveal true somewhat higher treatment effects. Alternatively, the study groups contained some patients with psychotic symptoms tested for with the Hamilton 21-item questionnaire and thereby becoming decisive for the outcome. If so, paroxetine would have an antipsychotic effect. This is in accordance with some experimental and clinical observations.

A review and Bayesian meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and adverse effects of 4 atypical neuroleptic drugs compared with haloperidol and placebo.

AIMS: The objective of the study was to examine the efficacy and the degree of adverse effects connected with atypical neuroleptic drugs and haloperidol by using a previously described Bayesian statistical method that includes both direct and indirect comparisons simultaneously. METHODS: The authors used the results of 30 double-blind, randomized studies including comparisons of 4 atypical neuroleptics and haloperidol, head-to-head or against placebo. We calculated the response ratios for drugs against placebo and thereafter the relative response ratios for one drug against another. With uniform priors, we calculated and ranked the posterior estimates of response ratios for antipsychotic effect, weight gain, and occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms. RESULTS: All second-generation neuroleptics analyzed are fairly effective with response ratios against placebo ranging between 1.55 (credibility interval, 1.36-1.76) and 1.99 (1.76-2.26), with clozapine being the most effective and aripiprazole the least effective among them. The risk of inducing weight gain is clearly very high for all 5 neuroleptic drugs compared with placebo with response ratios of 12.21 (10.22-15.05) for olanzapine and 11.28 (6.89-17.77) for clozapine. There is a clear increased risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects for haloperidol compared with placebo as the response ratio is 2.33 (2.03-2.49). The other drugs all have considerably less risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 second-generation neuroleptics included in our meta-analysis show only small differences in overall efficacy, with clozapine being the most effective and aripiprazole the least effective among them. When the risk of adverse effects is analyzed, olanzapine and clozapine are afflicted with the highest risk of inducing weight gain and haloperidol with extrapyramidal symptoms. Even aripiprazole and risperidone, however, induce considerable weight gain compared with placebo but may be acceptable alternatives when tailoring drug treatment to the individual patient.

What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements?

BACKGROUND: To ensure rapid access to new potentially beneficial health technologies, obtain best value for money, and ensure affordability, healthcare payers are adopting a range of innovative reimbursement approaches that may be called Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs). METHODS: The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum sought to identify why MEAs might be used, issues associated with implementation and develop principles for their use. A 2-day deliberative workshop discussed key papers, members' experiences, and collectively addressed four policy questions that resulted in this study. RESULTS: MEAs are used to give access to new technologies where traditional reimbursement is deemed inappropriate. Three different forms of MEAs have been identified: management of budget impact, management of uncertainty relating to clinical and/or cost-effectiveness, and management of utilization to optimize performance. The rationale for using these approaches and their advantages and disadvantages differ. However, all forms of MEA should take the form of a formal written agreement among stakeholders, clearly identifying the rationale for the agreement, aspects to be assessed, methods of data collection and review, and the criteria for ending the agreement. CONCLUSIONS: MEAs should only be used when HTA identifies issues or concerns about key outcomes and/or costs and/or organizational/budget impacts that are material to a reimbursement decision. They provide patient access and can be useful to manage technology diffusion and optimize use. However, they are administratively complex and may be difficult to negotiate and their effectiveness has yet to be evaluated.

Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between regulatory approval on the one hand and health technology assessment (HTA) and coverage on the other is receiving growing attention. Those responsible for regulatory approval, HTA, and coverage have different missions and their information requirements reflect these. There is nonetheless an increasingly popular view that improved communication and coordination between these functions could allow them all to be undertaken effectively with a lower overall burden of evidence requirements, thus speeding patient access to new products and reducing unnecessary barriers to innovation. This study summarizes the main points emerging from a recent discussion of this topic at the HTAi Policy Forum. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: After considering the roles of the various bodies, stakeholder perspectives and some current practical initiatives, those present at the Forum meeting discussed possible goals and challenges for improved interactions-in general and at specific stages of the product development life cycle. Opportunities for progress were seen in: continuing the dialogue to promote understanding and interaction between the different bodies and stakeholders; working to align scientific advice for manufacturers on the design and data requirements of pre- and post-marketing evaluation of products (specifically phase 2/3 and phase 4 trials for drugs); and extending the current dialogue to include discussion of product development to address unmet health needs.

Time until Need for Levodopa among New Users of Dopamine Agonists or MAO-B Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) inhibitors in the Norwegian population, between 1 July 2006 and 31 December 2016. Our primary endpoint was time until need for levodopa among new monotherapy users of dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors. METHODS: A prospective cohort study including all patients, aged 50 years or above, who had at least one prescription for a dopamine agonist or a MAO-B inhibitor dispensed in the study period. We used data from the Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD). As we wished to focus on new Parkinson patients, we excluded patients who had levodopa dispensed less than 180 days prior to their first dopamine agonist or MAO-B inhibitor redemption. We explored the demographics and the time until monotherapy was insufficient treatment (defined as need for levodopa prescription). RESULTS: We included 22958 new monotherapy users. Of these, 22108 used dopamine agonists and 850 used MAO-B inhibitors. The mean number of days until the first prescription of levodopa was dispensed was higher among the dopamine agonist users (621 days) compared to the MAO-B inhibitor users (352 days). The proportion of dopamine agonist users who started levodopa treatment during the study period was less than 7%, while the corresponding proportion of MAO-B inhibitor users was almost 59%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that new dopamine agonist users had a much greater delay in the need for levodopa than new MAO-B inhibitor users. It seems to be beneficial to initiate treatment with dopamine agonists when starting pharmacological treatment for new Parkinson patients.

Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes.

BACKGROUND: The way in which a health technology is used in any particular health system depends on the decisions and actions of a variety of stakeholders, the local culture, and context. In 2009, the HTAi Policy Forum considered how health technology assessment (HTA) could be improved to optimize the use of technologies (in terms of uptake, change in use, or disinvestment) in such complex systems. METHODS: In scoping, it was agreed to focus on initiatives to implement evidence-based guidance and monitoring activities. A review identified systematic reviews of implementation initiatives and monitoring activities. A two-day deliberative workshop was held to discuss key papers, members' experiences, and collectively address key questions. This consensus paper was developed by email and finalized at a postworkshop meeting. RESULTS: Evidence suggests that the impact and use of HTA could be increased by ensuring timely delivery of relevant reports to clearly determined policy receptor (decision-making) points. To achieve this, the breadth of assessment, implementation initiatives such as incentives and targeted, intelligent dissemination of HTA result, needs to be considered. HTA stakeholders undertake a variety of monitoring activities, which could inform optimal use of a technology. However, the quality of these data varies and is often not submitted to an HTA. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring data should be sufficiently robust so that they can be used in HTA to inform optimal use of technology. Evidence-based implementation initiatives should be developed for HTA, to better inform decision makers at all levels in a health system about the optimal use of technology.

Adverse effects information in clinical guidelines on pharmacological treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse to what extent clinical practice guidelines on drug treatment of depression in children and adolescents mention the risk of adverse effects, to characterise the citations in the guidelines and to assess to what extent data from a major study (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study, TADS) was used as basis for information about adverse effects. DESIGN: Systematic review of clinical guidelines and clinical decision support tools. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, guideline collections, Health libraries. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included national guidelines on depression in children and adolescents from European and/or English-speaking countries, published in English, German, French or any Scandinavian language since 2008. We also included well-known, international clinical decision support tools. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Guidelines were examined by all authors to identify and classify information on adverse effects. Citations for statements on adverse effects were extracted and classified by category. The extent of citations about suicidality risk versus other adverse effects was assessed. RESULTS: 19 guidelines were assessed. All guidelines discussed risk of suicidal behaviour connected with use of antidepressants. Most guidelines mentioned some other psychiatric adverse effects. Several guidelines did not include information on well-known and common somatic adverse effects. Most references concerned risk of suicidality. Adverse effects identified in underlying studies were not always presented. The TADS study was referred to, directly or indirectly, by 18/19 guidelines, but some only referred to TADS with regard to suicidality without citing the study's findings of somatic adverse effects. No guideline commented on the lack of long-term adverse effects data from TADS. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for treatment of depression in children and adolescents vary widely regarding information on adverse effects. Many guidelines do not provide information on common somatic adverse effects. There is no consensus as to what extent risks of adverse effects connected with use of antidepressants should be described in guidelines.

Critical appraisal of adverse effects reporting in the 'Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS)'.

OBJECTIVE: To identify all publications from the 'Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS)' and assess the findings regarding occurrence of any adverse effects in the treatment groups both for the short-term and long-term study stages. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of TADS publications with any information on adverse effects. RESULTS: We identified 48 publications describing various aspects of the TADS, in which 439 adolescent patients received treatment with fluoxetine, cognitive-behavioural therapy, cognitive-behavioural therapy plus fluoxetine or placebo. Eight publications were assessed as providing some data on adverse effects. Risk of suicidal behaviour was the only adverse effect that was addressed in all publications. Several psychiatric and physical adverse effects were reported during the first 12 weeks, but not mentioned in reports from later study stages. Common adverse effects of fluoxetine, such as weight changes or sexual problems, were not identified or mentioned in the publications. CONCLUSIONS: The TADS publications do not present a comprehensive assessment of treatment risk with fluoxetine in adolescents, especially for more than 12 weeks of treatment. Risk of suicidality was the only adverse effect that was reported over time. Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete with regard to the long-term safety profile of fluoxetine.

Characterization of gastrointestinal adverse effects reported in clinical studies of corticosteroid therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether 159 studies included in a previous meta-analysis reported on gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation in accordance with the CONSORT extension for reporting harms outcomes (CONSORT Harms recommendations checklist); whether differences were associated with funding source, journal, or publication year; and whether the CONSORT Harms checklist is a suitable tool for evaluation of adverse effects reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Articles were assessed for fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations, funding source, publication type, and year. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by comparing scores for each study. RESULTS: The mean CONSORT Harms score was 5.25 out of 10 (standard deviation ± 2.09). Most studies included information on participant withdrawals (133 studies, 83.6%), absolute risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (130 studies, 81.8%), and how harms-related information was collected (118 studies, 74.2%). Reporting of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation increased with higher scores (odds ratio 1.173, P = 0.042). There was no significant association between CONSORT Harms score achieved and publication year or funding source, but there was a trend toward higher scores in studies published in the major medical journals (score difference 0.78, P = 0.052). Definitions of gastrointestinal bleeding differed between studies. Reviewer agreement was fair to moderate with large variations. CONCLUSION: Few studies in the systematic review received high scores using the CONSORT Harms criteria. Most studies reported on the most important criteria regarding risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Reviewer agreement showed large variations due to imprecise texts and ambiguous criteria. Routine scoring according to fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations would be inadvisable without qualified judgment.

A Multiple Treatment Comparison of Eleven Disease-Modifying Drugs Used for Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Several disease-modifying drug therapies are available for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). To ensure the most appropriate MS management, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the disease-modifying medicines used for MS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including 11 disease-modifying drugs used for treatment of adult patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS. We performed a network meta-analysis using both direct and indirect evidence. We examined the endpoints, annual relapse, disability progression, mortality, serious adverse events and withdrawal from the study due to adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by developing a decision model. The model calculated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with different treatment strategies. Uncertainties in the parameter values were explored with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis and several scenario analyses. RESULTS: Alemtuzumab 12 mg was the most effective against annual relapse (high quality evidence). For disability progression, dimethyl fumarate 240 mg and fingolimod 0.5 mg and 1.25 mg were more effective treatment alternatives (high quality evidence). For withdrawal due to adverse events, the conclusion is unclear due to the low quality of the available evidence. Peg-interferon beta-1a was associated with more adverse events (than the other treatments). None of the examined treatments had an effect on overall mortality compared to placebo. The economic analysis indicated that alemtuzumab was more effective in terms of QALYs and less costly than the other treatment alternatives. Discarding alemtuzumab, three treatment alternatives (interferon beta-1b (Extavia), peg-interferon beta-1a and natalizumab) could be considered cost-effective depending on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Assuming a WTP below EUR 111,690 per QALY, interferon beta-1b (Extavia) was approximately 36% likely to be the most cost-effective treatment, followed by peg-interferon beta-1a (approximately 34% likely). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that alemtuzumab can be considered as more effective and less costly than the other treatment alternatives. There is a substantial potential cost saving if more patients start on the more effective and less costly treatment alternatives.