Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A meta-analysis on 10 years of real-world data

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®), the first preventive treatment FDA-approved specifically for chronic migraine in 2010.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed onabotulinumtoxinA observational data in chronic migraine published between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2021. Random-effects models evaluated available data for primary and secondary endpoints defined in onabotulinumtoxinA pivotal trials at approximately 24 weeks and 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 44 full-text eligible studies (29 prospective; 13 retrospective; 2 other), seven evaluated change from baseline (mean[confidence interval]) at ∼24 weeks and ∼52 weeks, respectively, for onabotulinumtoxinA in: number of headache days/month: (-10.64 [-12.31, -8.97]; -10.32 [-14.92, -5.73]); number of days of acute headache pain medication intake per month (-7.40 [-13.04, -1.77]; overlapping CIs at 52 weeks); total Headache Impact Test-6 score (-11.70 [-13.86, -9.54]); -11.80 [14.70, -8.90]); and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life v2.1 score (MSQ; 23.60 [CI: 21.56, 25.64]; 30.90 [CI: 28.29, 33.51]). At ∼24 weeks onabotulinumtoxinA showed total Migraine Disability Assessment score of 44.74 [28.50, 60.99] and ≥50% reduction in migraine days response rate of 46.57% [29.50%, 63.65%]. A sensitivity analysis at study-end suggested durability of onabotulinumtoxinA effectiveness on MSQ.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis reflecting real-world practice broadly corroborated with evidence from pivotal and long-term open-label studies of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine preventive treatment.

FC083: Finerenone and Canagliflozin in the Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Fidelio-DKD and Credence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Finerenone (FIN: an oral, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist) and canagliflozin (CAN: a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor) demonstrated cardiorenal efficacy in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes on top of renin–angiotensin system blockade in phase III placebo-controlled studies (FIDELIO-DKD [NCT02540993] for FIN; CREDENCE [NCT02065791] for CAN) [3,2]. In the absence of head-to-head studies, we assessed FIN and CAN in this patient population while appropriately accounting for meaningful differences between the trials.

METHOD

We performed an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), with placebo (PBO) as a common comparator, to generate measures of efficacy and safety while accounting for differences between the two study populations [3]. Individual patient-level data from FIDELIO-DKD and published data from CREDENCE were used [1,[2]. Weights were calculated and assigned to each patient in FIDELIO-DKD so the weighted population of FIDELIO-DKD matched that of CREDENCE for selected baseline characteristics, e.g. mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; 44.3 and 56.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 in FIDELIO-DKD and CREDENCE, respectively). Weights were obtained from a logistic regression model of the odds of enrolment in CREDENCE and FIDELIO-DKD for baseline characteristics believed to be effect modifiers. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing FIN and PBO for time-to-event endpoints were estimated based on the weighted population of FIDELIO-DKD. HRs with 95% CIs comparing FIN and CAN were then calculated from results of the previous step and published data from CREDENCE [2]. This analysis evaluated the cardiorenal composite endpoint from CREDENCE (kidney failure [dialysis, transplantation or sustained eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2), a doubling of serum creatinine level or death from kidney or cardiovascular disease) [2] and hyperkalaemia. A sensitivity analysis that matched patients based on their history of heart failure was performed.

RESULTS

Calculation of the weights for the FIDELIO-DKD population (N = 5674) resulted in an effective sample size of 1288 for the pseudo-population formed by the weighting to compare with the CREDENCE population (N = 4401). For the cardiorenal composite endpoint, the HR (95% CI) for FIN and PBO based on reweighted FIDELIO-DKD data was 0.72 (0.59–0.90) and the MAIC-based HR (95% CI) for FIN and CAN was 1.03 (0.79–1.35) (P = 0.802). For hyperkalaemia, the MAIC-based HR (95% CI) for FIN and CAN was 2.25 (1.67–3.03) (P < 0.001). Similar efficacy and safety results were demonstrated in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

The MAIC for FIDELIO-DKD and CREDENCE enabled more robust assessment of FIN and CAN when a similar patient population was considered. There was no evidence of a significant difference between FIN and CAN in the cardiorenal composite endpoint as assessed in CREDENCE. These results are consistent with a recent analysis using a different payer-accepted method that also accounted for differences between the FIDELIO-DKD and CREDENCE inclusion criteria and endpoints [3,4].

Pragmatic Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Combined With Advanced Pharmacoepidemiology for Benefit-Risk Assessments of Medicines Adapted to the Real-Life Constraints of Regulators: Development and Case Study

BACKGROUND

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) represents a promising method for benefit-risk assessment. Our goal was to develop features of pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM [Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking]) addressing real-life regulatory decision-making needs, incorporate advanced pharmacoepidemiology, and test the resulting benefit-risk framework using a case study.

METHODS

The Intervention Outcomes domain of EVIDEM was transformed into a generic benefit-risk framework including clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse event (AE) criteria. The concept of relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB) was developed for comparability across products and therapeutic areas and over time. Evidence matrix was designed to include most relevant data from trials, observational studies, and models, including Bayesian and longitudinal modeling. The framework was tested with a panel of stakeholders using efalizumab for psoriasis as retrospective case study. Uncertainty was explored.

RESULTS

The MCDA benefit-risk tree was adapted with psoriasis-specific subcriteria. Panelists assigned similar weights to benefits (0.48; SD, 0.20-0.70) and risks (0.52; SD, 0.10-0.60), with large variations reflecting diverse perspectives. Panelist scores reflected higher efficacy versus placebo, lower efficacy versus active comparators, and serious and fatal AEs identified postlicensing. Efalizumab's RBRB was positive at licensing in 2004 (0.29, scale -1 to +1) and ranged from -0.41 (vs active comparators) to 0.01 (vs placebo) in 2009, when its market authorization was withdrawn. Retesting indicated good reproducibility. Panelists acknowledged good face validity and the importance of criteria beyond benefit-risk in real-life assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach allows quantification and visualization of benefit-risk over time and across comparators. Combination of pragmatic MCDA designed to integrate criteria beyond benefit-risk and advanced statistics supports application of MCDA to further accountable benefit-risk assessments for real-life decision making.

A network meta-analysis on comparative efficacy and all-cause discontinuation of antimanic treatments in acute bipolar mania

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis methods enabling direct and indirect comparisons over the entire set of relevant clinical data produce quantitative point estimates for the treatments contrasts between competing interventions, and provide a hierarchical rank ordering between them. We aimed to provide evidence-based guidance on the efficacy and all-cause discontinuation of antimanic treatments.

METHOD

We conducted a network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. We searched all standard literature databases without language restrictions up to 15 January 2014 to identify reports of short-term, randomized, blinded trials of putative antimanic drugs as monotherapy for adults with bipolar-I mania.

RESULTS

Altogether, 14256 manic patients randomized to one of 18 active treatments or placebo provided 95 direct comparisons on 128 data points. For the primary outcome, standardized mean difference as Hedges' g (standardized mean difference; SMD), the hierarchies indicated by surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities were in agreement with the point estimates for all antimanic drugs identified as effective. For the 12 effective antimanic drugs on clinical use, SMDs against placebo ranged from 0.32 to 0.66 without superiority of one over another, except for risperidone v. aripiprazole and valproate. Aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and valproate had less all-cause discontinuation rates than placebo. Sensitivity analysis by drug class indicated similar efficacy profiles for haloperidol, second-generation antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers.

CONCLUSIONS

Hierarchical rank ordering by comparative efficacy and risk of all-cause discontinuations should help to guide antimanic treatment choices by clinicians, healthcare policy makers, and guideline developers.