Current medical research and opinion
-
Meta Analysis
The impact of clinical heterogeneity on conducting network meta-analyses in transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy.
Objective: The comparative safety and efficacy of tafamidis, patisiran and inotersen treatments for transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy (ATTR-PN) has not been evaluated in clinical trials. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, indirect treatment comparisons such as network meta-analyses (NMAs) can be performed to evaluate relative effects of treatments. This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting an NMA of available therapies for ATTR-PN patients. ⋯ Neuropathy outcomes were not evaluated consistently between trials. Conclusions: An NMA of ATTR-PN treatments was not feasible, given the observed cross-trial heterogeneity. This decision highlights the importance of careful consideration for clinical heterogeneity that may threaten the validity of indirect comparisons.
-
Multicenter Study Observational Study
Pain assessment for chronic lower back pain: performance of the PAL-S and PAL-I patient-reported measures for symptoms and impacts.
Objective: The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S) and the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I) were developed to incorporate patient perspective of treatment benefit in chronic low back pain (cLBP) trials. This study documents psychometric measurement properties of the PAL-S and PAL-I. Methods: In this multicenter, observational study, eligible participants clinically diagnosed with cLBP provided sociodemographic information and completed PAL measures and other patient-reported outcome measures of pain and/or disability. ⋯ Both measures significantly differentiated between pain intensity levels (based on numeric response scale) and painDETECT groups. Conclusion: The PAL-S and PAL-I generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. Routine use of these measures in treatment trials will enhance comparability of LBP-related symptom and impact results, including patient perspective of treatment benefit.
-
Objective: To perform evaluations of the CONTOUR PLUS LINK 2.4 blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) assessed according to ISO 15197:2013 criteria. Methods: Clinical trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01824355). In a laboratory study (Study 1), capillary fingertip blood samples from 100 subjects were evaluated in duplicate, using three test strip lots. ⋯ Most subjects found the BGMS easy to use. There were three non-serious, non-device related adverse events. Conclusion: The BGMS exceeded minimum ISO 15197:2013-specified accuracy criteria in the laboratory and in the hands of lay users with diabetes.
-
Objective: To compare the rates of successfully treated patients (STPs) with vortioxetine versus venlafaxine in major depressive disorder (MDD), using dual endpoints that combine improvement of mood symptoms with optimal tolerability or functional remission, and conduct a simplified cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: The 8-week SOLUTION study (NCT01571453) assessed the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine (10 mg/day) versus venlafaxine XR (150 mg/day) in adult Asian patients with MDD. Rates were calculated post-hoc of STP Mood and Tolerability (≥50% reduction from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score and no treatment-emergent adverse events) and STP Mood and Functioning (≥50% reduction from baseline in MADRS total score and Sheehan Disability Scale total score ≤6). ⋯ Conclusions: Higher rates of dual treatment success were seen with vortioxetine versus venlafaxine. Although vortioxetine was not dominant in the base case, the incremental cost per STP for vortioxetine versus venlafaxine were overall within acceptable ranges. These results support the benefits previously reported with vortioxetine versus other antidepressants in broad efficacy, tolerability profile and cost-effectiveness.
-
Objective: Rituximab is used as an off-label treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS); however, the comparative efficacy and safety of rituximab versus currently licensed disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for RRMS is unknown. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the available data pertaining to efficacy and safety of rituximab in adult patients with RRMS and highly active relapsing multiple sclerosis (HA-RMS); data quality was critically assessed via risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Methods: Biomedical literature databases were searched until mid-2018 and key proceedings were searched from 2016 to 2018. ⋯ Two-thirds of the non-randomized RRMS studies were associated with critical/serious RoB; the single RCT was associated with low RoB. Furthermore, all of the non-randomized HA-RMS studies were associated with critical/serious RoB. Conclusions: Available evidence of off-label rituximab use for the treatment of patients with RRMS suggests generally favorable efficacy versus placebo and interferons/glatiramer acetate; however, the poor quality of the included studies limits any robust conclusions.