Toenail Onychomycosis with or without Diabetes in Canada: Patient Treatment Preferences and Health State Utilities

Background

Toenail onychomycosis affects approximately 6.7% of Canadians. Symptoms include nail discolouration/disfiguration and pain; psychosocial impacts contribute to reduced health-related quality-of-life. Comorbid diabetes increases the risk of complications and exacerbates burden. Treatment may include topical therapy and/or oral agents.

Purpose

To understand toenail onychomycosis treatment preferences, and to quantify the impact of toenail onychomycosis, with or without diabetes, on patient well-being.

Methods

Adults living in Canada with self-reported, physician-diagnosed, toenail onychomycosis were recruited online. A discrete choice experiment was used to quantify treatment preferences. Scenarios were randomized; data were analyzed using conditional logit regression. Health state utilities were estimated using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3®. Results were stratified by diabetes status and toenail onychomycosis severity; the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to assess between-group utility differences.

Results

Three-hundred thirteen participants with toenail onychomycosis were included (161 had comorbid diabetes; 61.3%, severe onychomycosis). The mean age was 57.7 years; 55.9% were male. Treatment attributes with statistically significant impacts on patient preferences were efficacy (odds ratio [OR],1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.05 per 1% increased treatment success), administration method (one pill versus topical nail lacquer reference, 1.14; 1.04-1.26; topical solution applicator versus reference: 1.15; 1.03-1.29), severe adverse events (0.85; 0.80-0.90 per 1% increased risk), and risk of potential pharmacodynamic (0.80; 0.76-0.85) and alcohol (0.93; 0.88-0.98) interactions; preferences were more pronounced for efficacy and avoiding severe adverse events among toenail onychomycosis patients with comorbid diabetes. The mean (95% CI) utility value was 0.73 (0.70-0.75) overall, and statistically significantly lower (p=0.02) for toenail onychomycosis patients with diabetes (0.70; CI, 0.66-0.73) than those without (0.76; CI, 0.72-0.79).

Conclusion

Among patients with toenail onychomycosis, the presence of diabetes was associated with differing treatment-related preferences. Utility values for patients with toenail onychomycosis represent a significant decline from full health that is exacerbated by comorbid diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK

AIMS

Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

Predictors for improvement in patient-reported outcomes: post hoc analysis of a phase 3 randomized, open-label study of eculizumab and ravulizumab in complement inhibitor-naive patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is characterized by uncontrolled terminal complement activation leading to intravascular hemolysis (IVH), thrombosis, and impairments in quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to identify the clinical drivers of improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PNH receiving the complement component 5 (C5) inhibitors eculizumab and ravulizumab.This post hoc analysis assessed clinical outcomes and PROs from 246 complement inhibitor-naive patients with PNH enrolled in a phase 3 randomized non-inferiority study that compared the C5 inhibitors ravulizumab and eculizumab (study 301; NCT02946463). The variables of interest were lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, a surrogate measure of IVH, and hemoglobin (Hb) levels. PROs were collected using Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) to assess fatigue and QoL, respectively.Improvements in absolute mean LDH levels were significantly associated with improvements in mean FACIT-F score (p = 0.0024) and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health (GH) score (p < 0.0001) from baseline to day 183. Improvements in scores were achieved despite a non-significant increase in Hb levels. To understand the interaction between LDH and Hb, a regression analysis was performed: LDH response with Hb improvements was a significant predictor of improvement in fatigue. The independent effect of improved Hb did not significantly affect FACIT-F or EORTC QLQ-C30 GH scores.These findings suggest that LDH levels are an important determinant of fatigue and QoL outcomes in patients with PNH. CTR: NCT02946463, October 27, 2016.

Health State Utility Mapping of Rimegepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Double-Blind Treatment Phase and Open Label Extension (BHV3000-305)

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to (1) report long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes among patients using rimegepant preventatively in BHV3000-305 (NCT03732638) open-label extension (OLE) and (2) map Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2) to EQ-5D-3L utility values over the double-blind treatment (DBT; 0-12 weeks) and the OLE (13-64 weeks) to assess the influence of treatment on these values.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis using data from a rimegepant study for the prevention of migraine (BHV3000-305). Adult patients with migraine took either rimegepant 75 mg or placebo every other day (EOD) during the DBT phase. All patients received rimegepant during the OLE. MSQv2 was measured at baseline, weeks 12, 24, and 64. A validated algorithm was used to map MSQv2 scores to EQ-5D utilities.

RESULTS

Baseline data were available for 347 patients treated with placebo and 348 treated with rimegepant in the DBT period, who continued to the OLE. Baseline EQ-5D utilities were similar between trial arms: 0.598 for placebo and 0.614 for rimegepant. EQ-5D improved from baseline to week 12 and utilities increased by + 0.09 for placebo and + 0.10 for rimegepant (p value = 0.011). By 24 weeks, at which point patients who were originally randomized to placebo had received rimegepant 75 mg EOD for 12 weeks, HRQoL measures (MSQv2 and EQ-5D) were similar across groups, demonstrating rapid onset of treatment effect. This HRQoL improvement was durable out to 64 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Compared to placebo, treatment with rimegepant 75 mg was associated with greater improvement in EQ-5D utilities during the 12-week DBT phase. Patients originally randomized to placebo experienced a similar improvement in EQ-5D utilities after switching to rimegepant during the OLE, demonstrating that benefits are realized within 12 weeks of active treatment. This preventive effect was durable out to 64 weeks and was associated with an additional increase in HRQoL over time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03732638.

Characterizing the Occurrence of Key Clinical Milestones in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in the United States Using Real-World Data

Background: Data on the clinical course of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) exist from well-characterized clinical cohorts but estimates from real-world populations are fewer. Objective: The objective was to estimate the prevalence of key clinical milestones by age, among real-world commercially-insured DMD patients in the United States. Methods: MarketScan claims (2013–2018) were used to identify males with DMD. The percentages with wheelchair use or experiencing scoliosis, neurologic/neuropsychiatric involvement, cardiomyopathy, and respiratory involvement were tabulated; as were the median (interquartile range [IQR]) ages at first observed occurrence within the claims data. Results: Among DMD patients (n = 1,964), the median (IQR) baseline age was 15 (9–21) years, and median follow-up was 1.7 years. Wheelchair use was observed in 55% of those aged 8 to 13 years at cohort entry; scoliosis, among 38% of those 8 to 10 and 52% of those 11 to 13 years; neurologic/neuropsychiatric involvement, among 41–43% of those 8 to 13 years; respiratory involvement, among 45% of those 14 to 19 years; and cardiomyopathy, among 68% of those 14 to 16 and 58% of those 17 to 19 years. Conclusions: The prevalence of key clinical milestones across ages was broadly consistent with published findings. Variability in estimates reflect clinical heterogeneity; these contemporary estimates from real-world data help characterize clinical outcomes in DMD.

Rimegepant, Ubrogepant, and Lasmiditan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine Examining the Benefit-Risk Profile Using Number Needed to Treat/Harm

OBJECTIVES

To develop and compare benefit-risk profiles for rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published clinical trials.

METHODS

A fixed-effects Bayesian NMA of randomized controlled trials of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine were used to determine risk differences for efficacy and safety outcomes of the 3 treatments compared with pooled placebo. Risk differences were used to calculate number needed to treat (NNT) for pain relief and pain freedom at 2 and 2 to 24 hours and freedom from most bothersome symptoms at 2 hours; and number needed to harm (NNH) for dizziness and nausea, relative to placebo.

RESULTS

Results were based on 5 randomized controlled trials (NCT03461757, NCT02828020, NCT02867709, NCT02439320, and NCT02605174). NNT to achieve sustained pain relief at 2 to 24 hours was lowest for rimegepant 75 mg (5; 95% credible interval [Crl]: 4, 7) and ubrogepant 100 mg (5; 95% Crl: 4, 8) and highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (8; 95% Crl: 5, 16). Rimegepant had the lowest NNT to achieve sustained pain freedom at 2 to 24 hours and lasmiditan 50 mg had the highest (7; 95% Crl: 5, 12 vs. 26; 95% Crl: 13, 95). NNH for dizziness and nausea was highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (28; 95% Crl: 15, 62 and 99; 95% Crl: -2580, 2378, respectively). Lasmiditan 200 mg had the lowest NNH for dizziness and rimegepant 75 mg had the lowest NNH for nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profiles of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant may improve clinical decision-making.

Correlations between objective response rate and survival-based endpoints in first-line advanced non-small cell lung Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The study objective was to estimate the relationship between objective response and survival-based endpoints by drug class, in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line aNSCLC therapies reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or objective response rate (ORR). Trial-level and arm-level linear regression models were fit, accounting for inclusion of immunotherapy (IO)-based or chemotherapy-only RCT arms. Weighted least squares-based R² were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the main trial-level analysis of OS vs. ORR, the surrogate threshold effect was estimated. Exploratory analyses involved further stratification by: IO monotherapy vs. chemotherapy, dual-IO therapy vs. chemotherapy, and IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy.

RESULTS

From 17,040 records, 57 RCTs were included. In the main analysis, trial-level associations between OS and ORR were statistically significant in both the IO-based and chemotherapy-only strata, with R² estimates of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.26-0.81) and 0.34 (0.05-0.63), respectively. OS gains associated with a given ORR benefit were statistically significantly larger within IO vs. chemotherapy comparisons compared to chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy comparisons (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested a trend by IO type: for a given change in ORR, 'pure' IO (IO monotherapy and dual-IO) vs. chemotherapy RCTs tended to have a larger OS benefit than IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy RCTs. For ORR vs. PFS, trial-level correlations were strong in the IO-based vs. chemotherapy (R² = 0.84; 0.72-0.95), and chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy strata (R² = 0.69; 0.49-0.88). For OS vs. PFS, correlations were moderate in both strata (R² = 0.49; 0.20-0.78 and R² = 0.49; 0.23-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The larger OS benefit per unit of ORR benefit in IO-based RCTs compared to chemotherapy-only RCTs provides an important addition to the established knowledge regarding the durability and depth of response in IO-based treatments.

Rimegepant 75 mg for acute treatment of migraine is associated with significant reduction in monthly migraine days: Results from a long-term, open-label study

Background:

Rimegepant, a small molecule oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, is approved for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. We hypothesized that intermittent CGRP receptor blockade with rimegepant 75 mg acute treatment as needed (PRN) might result in reductions in monthly migraine days (MMD) over time, and was evaluated as the study objective.

Methods:

This was a post-hoc analysis of adults with ≥6 MMD at baseline who self-administered rimegepant 75 mg orally PRN for acute treatment of migraine up to 52-weeks in an open-label safety study (BHV3000-201; NCT03266588). Outcome measures (defined as median time to) and response rates (defined as proportion of patients reporting) were captured for ≥30% and ≥50% reduction of baseline MMD.

Results:

1044 participants with ≥6 MMD at baseline were analyzed. Median time to ≥30% reduction in MMD was 12 weeks (IQR; 4–40 weeks); median time to ≥50% reduction was 32 weeks (IQR; 12-NR weeks). Reduction in MMD was observed over time regardless of baseline migraine frequency, however higher baseline MMD were associated with a longer time to achieving ≥30% or ≥50% MMD reduction.

Conclusion:

In participants presenting with ≥6 MMD, PRN acute treatment of migraine attacks over 52-weeks with oral rimegepant 75 mg was observed to confer reductions in migraine frequency.

Trial registration:

NCT03266588

Monthly migraine days, tablet utilization, and quality of life associated with Rimegepant - post hoc results from an open label safety study (BHV3000-201)

Background

The objective of this study was to describe patterns in monthly migraine days (MMD) and tablet utilization, and to estimate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures in patients treated as needed (PRN) with rimegepant 75 mg over 52-weeks.

Methods

Eligible subjects were adults with ≥1 year history of migraine and ≥ 6 MMD at baseline, who used rimegepant 75 mg up to once daily PRN (at their discretion) for up to 52-weeks in an open-label safety study (BHV3000–201; NCT03266588). Mean MMD were calculated at each 4-week period, along with mean monthly tablets taken. Migraine-specific quality of life (MSQv2) data were mapped to EQ-5D utilities and used to characterize HRQoL over time. A published network meta-analysis was used to characterize pain hours as well as time periods spent migraine free.

Results

One thousand forty four subjects were included in this post-hoc analysis. Overall mean MMD were 10.9 at baseline and decreased to 8.9 by week 52. Tablet use remained stable over the follow-up period. A total of 0.08 incremental QALYs were associated with rimegepant use.

Conclusion

For subjects with 6 or more MMD, acute treatment of migraine attacks with rimegepant 75 mg on a PRN basis over one-year of follow-up was found to be associated with reduced MMD frequency without an increase in monthly tablet utilization, and improved HRQoL. There was no evidence of medication-related increases in MMDs when rimegepant 75 mg was used as needed for the acute treatment of migraine over 52-weeks.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03266588.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01378-5.

Quantifying the economic effects of ravulizumab versus eculizumab treatment in patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome

AIMS

This study compared the aggregate duration of treatment administration of approved eculizumab and ravulizumab treatment regimens and resultant productivity implications for patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) and their caregivers.

METHODS

The aggregate duration of treatment administration (which includes waiting time for medication preparation and time for infusion, recovery, and travel to and from the clinic) was determined for a hypothetical population of patients with aHUS treated with eculizumab (10 mg/mL) or ravulizumab (10 or 100 mg/mL), in the clinic or at home, for 1 year, in Germany, Italy, the UK, and the US. The data for US patients treated in the clinic was used to extend a previously published cost-minimization model (CMM) to estimate the annual lost productivity associated with treatment administration and to compare the overall annual treatment costs for hypothetical adult and pediatric patients in the US.

RESULTS

The aggregate duration of treatment administration associated with ravulizumab 10 mg/mL and 100 mg/mL was reduced by 44-52% and 69-74%, respectively, compared with eculizumab 10 mg/mL, across all four countries. Using the CMM, the adult and pediatric US patient lost productivity costs due to treatment were reduced by 56-60% and 73-76% with ravulizumab 10 mg/mL and 100 mg/mL, respectively, compared with eculizumab 10 mg/mL, and overall discounted annual treatment costs (direct and lost productivity costs owing to treatment) were reduced for ravulizumab (10 mg/mL and 100 mg/mL) vs eculizumab 10 mg/mL for adult and pediatric patients.

LIMITATIONS

This study was based on hypothetical patients, and assumptions were made regarding caregiver involvement, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with eculizumab, ravulizumab reduces the lost productivity costs associated with treatment. This reduction in costs is greater with the ravulizumab 100 mg/mL formulation, compared with ravulizumab 10 mg/mL, owing to shorter infusion times with this more concentrated formulation.

Characterizing demographics, comorbidities, and costs of care among populations with Duchenne muscular dystrophy with Medicaid and commercial coverage

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe X-linked progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by loss of ambulation, cardiomyopathy, respiratory insufficiency, and early mortality. Few data are available that describe the direct medical costs among patients with DMD in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the demographics, comorbidity burden, and direct monthly costs of care among patients with DMD with Medicaid and with commercial insurance coverage. METHODS: IBM MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid claims (2013-2018) were used to identify males aged 30 years or under with diagnostic codes for muscular dystrophy or DMD; additional exclusion criteria were applied to identify those with probable DMD. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were tabulated. The frequency of health care resource use and median (interquartile range [IQR]) monthly costs (in 2018 USD) were estimated from those with at least 12 months of continuous follow-up. RESULTS: Median (IQR) baseline ages were similar between the Medicaid (14 [9-20] years; n = 2,007) and commercial (15 [9-21] years; n = 1,964) DMD cohorts. The frequency of comorbidities over the period was slightly higher with those on Medicaid. The median duration of follow-up was 3.1 years among members of the Medicaid DMD cohort and 1.7 years among the commercial DMD cohort. Median monthly resource use was generally higher among the Medicaid DMD cohort; nonetheless, median (IQR) monthly costs were similar at $1,735 ($367-$5,281) for the Medicaid DMD cohort vs $1,883 ($657-$6,796) for the commercial DMD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The demographic characteristics and median direct medical costs were similar between patients with commercial vs Medicaid coverage, even though patients with Medicaid coverage had higher resource use. Despite challenges in definitively identifying DMD patients using claims data, these findings help characterize contemporary DMD populations in the United States and the related direct economic burden to the payer. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Klimchak and Gooch are employees of Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. Szabo, Qian, and Popoff are employees of Broadstreet HEOR, which received funds from Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., for work on this study. Iannaccone has received research funding or consulting fees from Avexis, Biogen, Fibrogen, Mallinkrodt, Regeneron, Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Scholar Rock, PTC Therapeutics, Pfizer, MDA, CureSMA, NIH, Genentech-Roche, and BCBS. Publication of the study results was not contingent on the sponsor's approval or censorship of the manuscript. Information from this study was presented, in part, at the AMCP Virtual Annual Meeting, April 21-24, 2020.

Mapping Migraine-Specific Quality of Life to Health State Utilities in Patients Receiving Rimegepant

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition, affecting up to 15% of Americans. Recent estimates from a long-term safety study of rimegepant showed evidence of decreased monthly migraine days (MMD) in people with episodic migraine treated with rimegepant 75 mg. The objective of this study was to characterize migraine-specific quality of life version 2.1 (MSQv2) scores and corresponding mapped EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) utility values.

METHODS

Study participants were randomized into two treatment regimens: individuals with 2-14 MMD received rimegepant 75 mg as needed (PRN), and those with 4-14 MMD at baseline who received rimegepant on a fixed every-other-day schedule plus an as needed dose on days they did not treat (QOD + PRN). MSQv2 was mapped to EQ-5D-3L utilities using a validated algorithm. Outcomes were assessed for the PRN arm at baseline weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52 and for the QOD + PRN arm at baseline and week 12.

RESULTS

At baseline, MSQv2 data were available for 1,800 patients: 1,033 with 2-8 MMD in the PRN group, 481 with 9-14 MMD in the PRN group, and 286 with 4-14 MMD in the QOD + PRN group. For all MSQv2 domains as well as mapped utility values, outcomes improved over each study visit. At baseline, EQ-5D-3L utilities were 0.66, 0.63, and 0.65 for the 2-8 MMD PRN, 9-14 MMD PRN, and 4-14 MMD QOD + PRN groups, respectively. At end-of-study, utilities had increased by + 0.09, + 0.10, and + 0.12 for the three groups, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons with baseline). Similar trends in improvement were observed across MSQv2 subdomains; all differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant 75 mg, which has been shown to be associated with reduced MMD, is associated with improvement in MSQv2 domains over time, leading to estimated improvement in EQ-5D-3L utilities. While this improvement was observed in all patient-groups, it was most pronounced in those with higher MMD and those taking rimegepant QOD + PRN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT03266588.

Comparative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the objective of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare the relative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan in adults with acute migraine. Outcomes included sustained pain freedom and -relief 2-48 hours post-dose, and adverse events. No RCTs were identified that directly compared these interventions. Therefore, a fixed-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted by identifying a connected (via comparison to placebo) network of RCTs.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were identified as follows: rimegepant study 303 (n = 1,466), ubrogepant ACHIEVE I and II (n = 1,672 and n = 1,686, respectively), and lasmiditan SAMURAI and SPARTAN (n = 2,231 and n = 3,005, respectively). Efficacy outcomes (pain freedom and relief at 2, 24, 48 hours) tended to be highest for lasmiditan 200 mg and rimegepant followed lower doses of lasmiditan and all doses of ubrogepant. However, lasmiditan 200 mg was also associated with higher rates of adverse events, particularly somnolence and dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant all performed significantly better than placebo with respect to pain freedom and pain relief. Efficacy results were similar for rimegepant and lasmiditan with rimegepant having higher rates of pain freedom and relief than lower doses of lasmiditan, while somnolence and dizziness outcomes were lower for rimegepant than higher doses of lasmiditan.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

Rimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab.

METHODS

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12.

RESULTS

When matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains.

CONCLUSIONS

When adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

Aligning text mining and machine learning algorithms with best practices for study selection in systematic literature reviews

BACKGROUND

Despite existing research on text mining and machine learning for title and abstract screening, the role of machine learning within systematic literature reviews (SLRs) for health technology assessment (HTA) remains unclear given lack of extensive testing and of guidance from HTA agencies. We sought to address two knowledge gaps: to extend ML algorithms to provide a reason for exclusion-to align with current practices-and to determine optimal parameter settings for feature-set generation and ML algorithms.

METHODS

We used abstract and full-text selection data from five large SLRs (n = 3089 to 12,769 abstracts) across a variety of disease areas. Each SLR was split into training and test sets. We developed a multi-step algorithm to categorize each citation into the following categories: included; excluded for each PICOS criterion; or unclassified. We used a bag-of-words approach for feature-set generation and compared machine learning algorithms using support vector machines (SVMs), naïve Bayes (NB), and bagged classification and regression trees (CART) for classification. We also compared alternative training set strategies: using full data versus downsampling (i.e., reducing excludes to balance includes/excludes because machine learning algorithms perform better with balanced data), and using inclusion/exclusion decisions from abstract versus full-text screening. Performance comparisons were in terms of specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and matching the reason for exclusion.

RESULTS

The best-fitting model (optimized sensitivity and specificity) was based on the SVM algorithm using training data based on full-text decisions, downsampling, and excluding words occurring fewer than five times. The sensitivity and specificity of this model ranged from 94 to 100%, and 54 to 89%, respectively, across the five SLRs. On average, 75% of excluded citations were excluded with a reason and 83% of these citations matched the reviewers' original reason for exclusion. Sensitivity significantly improved when both downsampling and abstract decisions were used.

CONCLUSIONS

ML algorithms can improve the efficiency of the SLR process and the proposed algorithms could reduce the workload of a second reviewer by identifying exclusions with a relevant PICOS reason, thus aligning with HTA guidance. Downsampling can be used to improve study selection, and improvements using full-text exclusions have implications for a learn-as-you-go approach.

A US cost-minimization model comparing ravulizumab versus eculizumab for the treatment of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome

AIMS

Ravulizumab, engineered from eculizumab, provides sustained C5 inhibition in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) while reducing dosing frequency (every 8 vs 2 weeks, respectively). Treatment choice often carries significant financial implications. This study compared the economic consequences of ravulizumab and eculizumab for treating aHUS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-minimization model compared direct medical costs for ravulizumab and eculizumab in treating aHUS, assuming equivalent efficacy and safety, and took a US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and a 3.0% cost discount rate. The base case modeled adult and pediatric treatment-naïve populations, with characteristics based on clinical trials, and treatment patterns (duration, discontinuation, re-initiation) derived from eculizumab studies with long-term follow-up. Treatment costs (2019 US$) were based on wholesale drug acquisition costs, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid fee schedules, and published disease management studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by adjusting relevant variables.

RESULTS

Ravulizumab provided lifetime per-patient cost reductions (discounted) of 32.4% and 35.5% vs eculizumab in adult and pediatric base cases, respectively. Total costs for ravulizumab vs eculizumab were $12,148,748 and $17,979,007, respectively, for adults, and $11,587,832 and $17,959,814, respectively, for children. Pre-discontinuation treatment contributed the largest proportion of total costs for ravulizumab (94.8% and 88.0%) and eculizumab (94.8% and 87.8%) in adults and children, respectively. Across sensitivity analyses, ravulizumab provided cost reductions vs eculizumab.

LIMITATIONS

The model included several typical assumptions. Base case patients with more severe stages of chronic kidney disease were assumed not to discontinue treatment, nor to experience an excess mortality risk in either treatment arm, which may not reflect real-world clinical observations. Additionally, rebates and discounts on medication acquisition or administration were not considered.

CONCLUSIONS

In US patients with aHUS, ravulizumab provided cost reductions of 32.4-35.5% vs eculizumab, with a reduced dosing frequency for ravulizumab. The magnitude of reductions was consistent across sensitivity analyses.

Comparative efficacy of cemiplimab versus other systemic treatments for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

Aim: To estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, versus EGFR inhibitors, pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. Patients & methods: We performed an indirect treatment comparison of cemiplimab and other available systemic therapies for patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Results: Cemiplimab was associated with benefits in OS (hazard ratios range: 0.07-0.52) and progression-free survival (hazard ratios range: 0.30-0.67) versus EGFR inhibitors and pembrolizumab (data from KEYNOTE-629). Cemiplimab was more efficacious versus platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of OS. Conclusion: Cemiplimab may offer improvements in survival for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients compared with existing systemic therapies.

Critical Appraisal of Published Indirect Comparisons and Network Meta-Analyses of Competing Interventions for Multiple Myeloma

OBJECTIVES

In the field of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), between-trial or indirect comparisons are required to estimate relative treatment effects between competing interventions based on the available evidence. Two approaches are frequently used in RRMM: network meta-analysis (NMA) and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the relevance and credibility of published NMA and unanchored MAIC studies aiming to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatment options for RRMM.

METHODS

Twelve relevant studies were identified in the published literature (n = 7) and from health technology assessment agencies (n = 5). Data from trials were extracted to identify between-trial differences that may have biased results. Credibility of the performed analyses and relevance of the research questions were critically appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist and feedback based on consultations with clinical experts.

RESULTS

The identified studies concerned NMAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 7), unanchored MAICs (n = 4), or both types of analyses (n = 1). According to clinical expert consultation, the majority of the identified NMAs did not consider differences in prior therapies or treatment duration across the RCTs included in the analyses, thereby compromising the relevance.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results and feedback from clinicians, the majority of NMAs did not consider prior treatment history or treatment duration, which resulted in nonrelevant comparisons. Furthermore, it may have compromised the credibility of the estimates owing to differences in effect-modifiers between the different trials. Pairwise comparisons by means of unanchored MAICs require clear justification given the reliance on non-randomized comparisons.

Comparative efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide versus SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients inadequately controlled with one to two oral antidiabetic drugs: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide relative to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) licensed in Europe and North America among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with 1-2 oral antidiabetics (OADs), using a network meta-analysis (NMA). Design systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data Sources EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched from January 1994 to August 2017.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials with ≥20 weeks of treatment evaluating once-weekly semaglutide or SGLT-2is. Primary outcomes included change from baseline in: HbA1c, weight, systolic blood pressure, postprandial blood glucose and fasting plasma glucose. Fixed-effect and random-effect Bayesian NMA were used to indirectly compare treatment effects at 26 (±4) weeks. Metaregression and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Model selection was performed using the deviance information criterion and consistency was assessed by comparing indirect (edge-splitting) to direct evidence.

RESULTS

Forty-eight publications representing 21 trials were included. The mean differences (MD) in change from baseline in HbA1c of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg versus SGLT-2is ranged from -0.56% for canagliflozin 300 mg (95% credible interval (CrI): -0.76 to -0.33%), to -0.95% for dapagliflozin 5 mg (95% CrI: -1.20 to -0.69%). The MD in change from baseline in weight of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg versus SGLT-2is ranged from -1.35 kg for canagliflozin 300 mg to -2.48 kg for dapagliflozin 5 mg, while change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose ranged from -0.41 mmol/L for canagliflozin 300 mg to -1.37 mmol/L for dapagliflozin 5 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide was not statistically differentiable than all SGLT-2is in reducing systolic blood pressure. NMA was not feasible for postprandial blood glucose and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight in T2D patients inadequately controlled with 1-2 OADs compared to all SGLT-2is licensed in Europe and North America.

Comparative efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Treatment intensification with additional anti-diabetic agents is recommended in type 2 diabetes (T2D) for patients inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. The present network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated comparative efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) in T2D patients inadequately controlled with metformin.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials with ≥20 weeks duration were searched in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL. Primary efficacy outcomes were: change from baseline in HbA_1c, weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), post-prandial blood glucose (PPG), and fasting blood glucose (FPG). Treatment effects at 26 (±4) weeks were compared using Bayesian NMAs. Meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were used to address the trial heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eight trials were found eligible for this NMA. Statistically significant reductions in HbA1c were observed with both 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg doses of once-weekly semaglutide when compared to SGLT-2is. The mean differences in change from baseline in HbA_1c for once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg vs SGLT-2is ranged from -0.66% for canagliflozin 300 mg (95% Credible Intervals [CrI]: -0.82, -0.50%) to -1.11% for dapagliflozin 5 mg (95% CrI: -1.37, -0.85%). Once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg performed significantly better than all SGLT-2is of interest in reducing weight and improving FPG levels: however, SBP reduction was not statistically differentiable. Results of sensitivity analysis and meta-regressions aligned with base-case results. NMAs were not possible for PPG and safety outcomes, due to lack of data.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide treatment is significantly better compared to SGLT-2is in achieving adequate glycemic control in T2D patients inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Selection of optimal second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) has important clinical and programmatic implications. To inform the 2016 revision of the WHO ART guidelines, we assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of available second-line ART regimens for adults and adolescents in whom first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens have failed.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched for randomised controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies that evaluated outcomes in treatment-experienced adults living with HIV who switched ART regimen after failure of a WHO-recommended first-line NNRTI-based regimen. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for reports published from Jan 1, 1996, to Aug 8, 2016, and searched conference abstracts published from Jan 1, 2014, to Aug 8, 2016. Outcomes of interest were viral suppression, mortality, AIDS-defining illnesses or WHO stage 3-4 disease, discontinuations, discontinuations due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We assessed comparative efficacy and safety in a network meta-analysis, using Bayesian hierarchical models.

FINDINGS

We identified 12 papers pertaining to eight studies, including 4778 participants. The network was centred on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir monotherapy was the only regimen inferior to others. With the lower estimate of the 95% credible interval (CrI) not exceeding the predefined threshold of 15%, evidence at 48 weeks supported the non-inferiority of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir to regimens including ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus two NRTIs with respect to viral suppression (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CrI 0·88-1·35). Estimated efficacy of ritonavir-boosted darunavir (800 mg once daily) was too imprecise to determine non-inferiority. Overall, regimens did not differ significantly with respect to continuations, AIDS-defining illnesses or WHO stage 3-4 disease, or mortality.

INTERPRETATION

With the exception of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir, the evidence base is unable to provide strong support to alternative second-line options to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus two NRTIs, and thus more trials are warranted.

FUNDING

WHO.

Comparative efficacy and safety of first-line antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

New antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for HIV could improve clinical outcomes for patients. To inform global guidelines, we aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of recommended ART regimens for HIV in ART-naive patients.

METHODS

For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched for randomised clinical trials published up to July 5, 2015, comparing recommended antiretroviral regimens in treatment-naive adults and adolescents (aged 12 years or older) with HIV. We extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: viral suppression, mortality, AIDS defining illnesses, discontinuations, discontinuations due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We synthesised data using network meta-analyses in a Bayesian framework and included older treatments, such as indinavir, to serve as connecting nodes. We defined network nodes in terms of specific antivirals rather than specific ART regimens. We categorised backbone regimens and adjusted for them through group-specific meta-regression. We used the GRADE framework to interpret the strength of inference.

FINDINGS

We identified 5865 citations through database searches and other sources, of which, 126 articles related to 71 unique trials were included in the network analysis, including 34 032 patients randomly assigned to 161 treatment groups. For viral suppression at 48 weeks, compared with efavirenz, the odds ratio (OR) for viral suppression was 1·87 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·34-2·64) with dolutegravir and 1·40 (1·02-1·96) with raltegravir; with respect to viral suppression, low-dose efavirenz was similar to all other treatments. Both low-dose efavirenz and integrase strand transfer inhibitors tended to be protective of discontinuations due to adverse events relative to normal-dose efavirenz. The most protective effect relative to efavirenz in network meta-analyses was that of dolutegravir (OR 0·26, 95% CrI 0·14-0·47), followed by low-dose efavirenz (0·39, 0·16-0·92). Owing to insufficient data, we could make no conclusions about serious adverse events. Low event rates also limited the quality of evidence with regard to mortality and AIDS defining illnesses.

INTERPRETATION

The efficacy and safety of ART has substantially improved with the introduction of newer drug classes of antiretrovirals that are now available to patients and HIV care providers. Their improved tolerance could be part of a larger solution to improve retention, which is a challenge, particularly in low-income and middle-income country settings.

FUNDING

The World Health Organization.