[A network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of baloxavir marboxil versus neuraminidase inhibitors for the treatment of influenza in otherwise healthy patients].

AIM: Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is the first cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor being studied for the treatment of influenza in single oral dosing regimen. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the efficacy and safety of baloxavir compared to other antivirals for influenza in otherwise healthy patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed on 14 November 2016 in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI to identify randomized controlled trials assessing antivirals for influenza. A NMA including 22 trials was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other antivirals. RESULTS: The time to alleviation of all symptoms was significantly shorter for baloxavir compared to zanamivir (difference in median time 19.96 h; 95% CrI [3.23, 39.07]). The time to cessation of viral shedding was significantly shorter for baloxavir than zanamivir and oseltamivir (47.00 h; 95% CrI [28.18, 73.86] and 56.03 h [33.74, 87.86], respectively). The mean decline in virus titer from baseline to 24 h was significantly greater for baloxavir than for the other drugs. Other differences in efficacy outcomes were not significant. No significant differences were found between baloxavir and the other antivirals for safety, except total drug-related adverse events where baloxavir demonstrated a decrease compared to oseltamivir and laninamivir. CONCLUSION: The NMA suggests that baloxavir demonstrated better or similar efficacy results compared to other antivirals with a comparable safety profile. Baloxavir led to a significant decrease in viral titer versus zanamivir, oseltamivir and peramivir and decreased viral shedding versus zanamivir and oseltamivir.

Burden of cytomegalovirus disease in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: a national, matched cohort study in an inpatient setting.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: No studies have compared the risk of mortality or graft-versus-host disease, in an inpatient setting in France, in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients who develop cytomegalovirus disease with those who do not. This study assessed the impact of cytomegalovirus disease on clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients using the French Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Recipients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant in French hospitals between 2008 and 2011 were included in this retrospective, matched cohort study. Those with cytomegalovirus disease were each matched with two allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients without cytomegalovirus disease according to demographic and clinical characteristics. Probabilities of in-hospital mortality, graft rejection and/or graft-versus-host disease, and healthcare resource utilization were compared up to 12 months after cytomegalovirus disease diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 4884 transplant recipients were enrolled, of which 194 had cytomegalovirus disease. Of these, 165 recipients with cytomegalovirus disease were matched to 330 without cytomegalovirus disease (1:2 ratio). The development of cytomegalovirus disease was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality (relative risk = 1.7, p = 0.0005) and higher cumulative number of inpatient days (p < 0.0001), but was not associated with a significantly higher risk of graft rejection and/or graft-versus-host disease or healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the increased risk of in-hospital mortality and higher cumulative number of inpatient days in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients with cytomegalovirus disease versus those without, new strategies to prevent and manage cytomegalovirus disease are warranted.

Evaluation of different approaches for confounding in nonrandomised observational data: a case-study of antipsychotics treatment.

Although randomised controlled trials are regarded as the gold standard for treatments efficacy, evidence from observational studies remains relevant. To address the problem of possible confounding in these studies, investigators must employ analysis methods that adjust for confounders and lead to an unbiased estimation of the treatment effect. In this paper, the authors describe two relevant statistical methods. The first method represents the classical approach consisting of a multiple regression model including the effects of treatment and covariates. This approach considers the relation between prognostic factors and the outcome variable as a relevant criterion for adjustment. The second method is based on the propensity score, and focuses on the relation between prognostic factors and treatment assignment. These approaches were applied to a cohort of 183 French schizophrenic patients who were followed for a 2-year period (from 1998 to 2000). The probability of relapse according to antipsychotic treatment exposure was modelled using Cox regression models with the two statistical methods. Goodness-of-fit criteria were used to compare the modelling approaches. This study demonstrates that the propensity score, a predicted probability, has an important balancing property that underscores its value in strengthening the results of nonrandomised observational studies.

Analysis of health-related quality of life and costs based on a randomised clinical trial of escitalopram for relapse prevention in patients with generalised social anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is associated with substantial reduction in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Escitalopram has proven efficacy in the short-term treatment of SAD and prevention of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the clinical effects of treatment translated into HRQoL benefits and to investigate costs of SAD treatment. METHODS: Data on HRQoL and resource utilisation were collected in a previously published clinical trial of escitalopram in relapse prevention. Among 517 patients, 371 responded to 12 weeks of open-label treatment with escitalopram and were randomised to escitalopram or placebo for 24 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using the short form (SF)-36 instrument and SF-6D utilities (preference-based index scores for overall HRQoL) were calculated. Costs were calculated for responders over the acute phase and for non-relapsed patients over the continuation phase, applying UK unit costs. RESULTS: Health-related quality of life was significantly improved after the acute phase when compared with baseline. The SF-6D utility increased by 0.047 in responders (p < 0.0001) and 0.021 in non-responders (p = 0.0005). Healthcare costs were non-significantly lower in acute phase than during prestudy phase (p = 0.0587 from NHS perspective), as were productivity costs (p = 0.1440). HRQoL at last visit was lower in relapsed than non-relapsed patients. The difference in utility was -0.026 (p = 0.0007). Healthcare and productivity costs were non-significantly lower in the escitalopram group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Both effective acute treatment of SAD and prevention of relapse with escitalopram are associated with significant HRQoL benefits. Despite some limitations, the cost analysis suggests that savings in physician-visits and inpatient care may offset drug acquisition costs.

A retrospective database study comparing treatment outcomes and cost associated with choice of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonists for asthma maintenance treatment in Germany.

AIMS: This retrospective, observational cohort study aimed to compare treatment outcomes and healthcare costs in the year after initiation of maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone in a German healthcare setting. METHODS: Data on German asthma patients initiating treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone between June 2001 and June 2005 were obtained from the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The primary outcome was the probability of treatment success, defined according to short-acting beta(2)-agonist prescriptions and switches or addition of controller medications, during the postindex year. A secondary definition of treatment success included hospitalisations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescriptions. Secondary outcomes included severe asthma exacerbations, defined as >or=1 OCS prescription, asthma-related hospitalisation and/or referral. The effect of treatment on costs was estimated using generalised linear models, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the budesonide/formoterol (n = 1456) and salmeterol/fluticasone (n = 982) groups in disease severity markers in the pre-index year. Patients on budesonide/formoterol had a 44% greater probability of treatment success [odds ratio (OR): 1.44; p = 0.0003] according to the primary definition and a 26% greater probability (OR: 1.26; p = 0.0119) according to the secondary definition, fewer severe exacerbations (-33.4%; p = 0.0123) and fewer OCS prescriptions (-31.5%; p = 0.0082) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, after controlling for baseline characteristics. Adjusting for covariates, budesonide/formoterol had a significant inverse relationship on asthma-related costs compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (-13.4%; p < 0.001). Total cost (asthma- and non-asthma-related costs) was 12.6% lower for budesonide/formoterol (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that for patients with chronic asthma in Germany, budesonide/formoterol rather than salmeterol/fluticasone had a higher likelihood of treatment success, and that budesonide/formoterol is the less costly option. Although the cohorts appeared to be well matched at baseline, the results should be interpreted with caution given the observational nature of the study.