Efficacy and Treatment Burden of Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab Treat-and-Extend Regimens at 2 Years: Network Meta-Analysis Incorporating Individual Patient Data Meta-Regression and Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and treatment burden between intravitreally administered aflibercept (IVT-AFL) and ranibizumab (RBZ) treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) at 2 years. METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL in October 2018. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and/or individual patient data meta-regression was used to connect ALTAIR (assessing IVT-AFL T&E) with other studies, adjusting for between-trial differences in baseline visual acuity and age or baseline visual acuity, age, and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) status. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, including direct MAIC between IVT-AFL T&E (ALTAIR) and RBZ T&E (CANTREAT and TREX-AMD trials). RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (ALTAIR, VIEW 1 and 2, CATT, CANTREAT, and TREX) were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL T&E was assessed in one study, ALTAIR (n = 255), while RBZ T&E was assessed in two trials (n = 327). At 2 years, the median difference (95% credibility interval) between IVT-AFL T&E and RBZ T&E regarding the numbers of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained was not significant (M1: - 2.29 [- 8.10, 3.58]; M2: - 0.55 [- 6.34, 5.29]). IVT-AFL T&E was associated with significantly fewer injections than RBZ-T&E (M1: - 6.12 [- 7.60, - 4.65]; M2: - 5.93 [- 7.42, - 4.45]). Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main scenarios. CONCLUSION: Patients with wAMD receiving an IVT-AFL T&E regimen achieved and maintained improvement in visual acuity with fewer injections over 2 years compared with RBZ T&E. IVT-AFL T&E may therefore serve as the optimal therapy for wAMD, as it was associated with clinical efficacy and minimized treatment burden.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of annualized bleeding rate and utilization of BAY 94-9027 versus three recombinant factor VIII agents for prophylaxis in patients with severe hemophilia A.

Background: BAY 94-9027 is an extended half-life recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) that prevents bleeding in persons with hemophilia A at twice-weekly, 5-day, and 7-day dosing intervals. In rare diseases such as hemophilia, where small populations preclude head-to-head comparisons in randomized controlled trials, outcomes from different studies can be compared by matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) via matched summary statistics of individual patient data. This study compared MAIC-adjusted outcomes of BAY 94-9027 with other FVIII agents for prophylaxis of hemophilia. Methods: Weighted patient data from the BAY 94-9027 PROTECT VIII trial were used to compare annualized bleeding rates (ABRs), percentage of patients with zero bleeds, and factor utilization against published data on rFVIII-Fc fusion protein (rFVIIIFc), BAX 855, and recombinant antihemophilic factor/plasma/albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM). Results: After matching BAY 94-9027 and comparators, the mean BAY 94-9027 utilization was significantly lower than rFVIIIFc pre- and post-matching (66.2 vs 82.2 IU/kg/week; 66.5 vs 82.2 IU/kg/week; both P<0.001). Median BAY 94-9027 utilization (IU/kg/week) trended lower than BAX 855 (64.3 vs 87.4) and rAHF-PFM (2004 study: 64.0 vs 107.5; 2012 study: 63.6 vs 109.9). Mean ABRs and percentages of patients with zero bleeds were similar post-matching between BAY 94-9027 and comparators. Conclusion: BAY 94-9027 demonstrated similar MAIC-adjusted ABR with lower utilization than rFVIIIFc, BAX 855, and rAHF-PFM.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%-94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart-failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) for the treatment of individuals with chronic heart failure and reduced-ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented as a lifelong regression-based cohort model. We compared sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in chronic heart failure patients with HFrEF and New York-Heart Association Functional Classification II-IV symptoms. Regression models based on the randomised clinical phase III PARADIGM-HF trials were used to predict events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, adverse events and quality of life) for each treatment strategy modelled over the lifetime horizon, with adjustments for patient characteristics. Unit costs were obtained from Swiss public sources for the year 2014, and costs and effects were discounted by 3%. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the sacubitril/valsartan strategy showed a decrease in the number of hospitalisations (6.0% per year absolute reduction) and lifetime hospital costs by 8.0% (discounted) when compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan was predicted to improve overall and quality-adjusted survival by 0.50 years and 0.42 QALYs, respectively. Additional net-total costs were CHF 10 926. This led to an ICER of CHF 25 684. In PSA, the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective at thresholds of CHF 50 000 was 99.0%. CONCLUSION: The treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril is cost effective, if a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 50 000 per QALY gained ratio is assumed.

Psychometric Validation of the Heart Failure Caregiver Questionnaire (HF-CQ®).

BACKGROUND: The Heart Failure Caregiver Questionnaire (HF-CQ®) was developed to assess subjective outcomes of heart failure caregivers. The HF-CQ® comprises 21 questions on three domains, namely physical, emotional/psychological and lifestyle. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the HF-CQ®. METHODS: Patients (n = 150) with heart failure and their primary caregivers (n = 150) were recruited from 11 sites in USA. Caregivers completed the HF-CQ® and additional questionnaires, namely Caregiver Reaction Assessment, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, EuroQol-5 domain, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Patient-completed Global Impression of Severity, construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability and responsiveness of the HF-CQ® were also assessed. RESULTS: In the physical and lifestyle domains, all items showed acceptable validity. No high correlations between HF-CQ® scores and other caregiver-completed instruments, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, EuroQol-5 domain or Caregiver Reaction Assessment, were reported. The intra-class correlation coefficient exceeded the threshold for reliability (>0.7) across the physical well-being (0.785), emotional/psychological (0.797), lifestyle (0.787) and total scores (0.850), indicating acceptable reliability. Internal consistency results using Cronbach's alpha showed the total aggregate score of 0.942 to be reliable. In the responsiveness analyses, each of the three scales and the total score showed responsiveness to changes defined by the Caregiver Global Impression of Severity. The overall caregiver burden score increased with increased severity of illness in the cared-for patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides initial evidence for the acceptable validity of the HF-CQ® as an instrument to measure heart failure caregiver burden.

Thirty Years of Evidence on the Efficacy of Drug Treatments for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), ß-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these drugs and their combinations regarding all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic literature review identified 57 randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2015, which were compared in terms of study and patient characteristics, baseline risk, outcome definitions, and the observed treatment effects. Despite differences identified in terms of study duration, New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, and use of background digoxin, a network meta-analysis was considered feasible and all trials were analyzed simultaneously. The random-effects network meta-analysis suggested that the combination of ACEI+BB+MRA was associated with a 56% reduction in mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% credible interval 0.26-0.66); ARNI+BB+MRA was associated with the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.19-0.65). A sensitivity analysis that did not account for background therapy suggested that ARNI monotherapy is more efficacious than ACEI or ARB monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The network meta-analysis showed that treatment with ACEI, ARB, BB, MRA, and ARNI and their combinations were better than the treatment with placebo in reducing all-cause mortality, with the exception of ARB monotherapy and ARB plus ACEI. The combination of ARNI+BB+MRA resulted in the greatest mortality reduction.

Treatment Initiation Patterns, Modifications, and Medication Adherence Among Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure Patients: A Retrospective Claims Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a debilitating disease associated with high mortality and frequent hospitalizations. American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) guidelines recommend the following drug classes for HF treatment: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor II blocker (ARB) for patients intolerant to ACEI, beta blocker (BB), and aldosterone antagonist (AA). OBJECTIVE: To examine, in a real-word setting, the treatment initiation pattern among newly diagnosed HF patients in the United States, subsequent treatment modifications, hospitalizations and the impact of hospitalizations on therapy changes, and treatment adherence and persistence. METHODS: Using medical and pharmacy claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan database, this retrospective cohort study included adult patients with ≥ 2 medical claims corresponding to an HF diagnosis (ICD-9-CM codes 428.x, 402.11, 402.91, 404.01, 404.11, 404.91, 404.03, 404.13, and 404.93) between April 2009 and March 2012. The date of the first claim was defined as the index date. Patients with continuous medical and pharmacy eligibility for a minimum of 12 months pre- and post-index were included in the analysis. Patients with an HF diagnosis in the 12 months before the index date were excluded. Index treatment (within 30 days post-index), subsequent treatment modification (class addition/removal) during the study period, hospitalization, and change in treatment after hospitalization (within 15 days after hospital discharge) were determined. Adherence was evaluated using the proportion of days covered (PDC) method, and persistence was defined as the proportion of patients remaining on index treatment after a defined period of time (12 months). RESULTS: A total of 235,758 patients meeting the sample selection criteria were included in the analysis and were followed for a median of 28 months after the index date. Approximately 42% of patients were not prescribed any HF-specific treatment within 30 days post-index. Among those treated, prescriptions for ACEIs were filled by 46.42% of patients, ARBs by 17.07%, BBs by 75.62%, and AAs by 9.83%. Based on HF therapy class, monotherapy was prescribed to 51% of patients, bi-therapy to 40%, and triple therapy to 9%. More than 80% of patients experienced treatment modification during the median 28 months of follow-up. A total of 174,563 (74.0%) patients had at least 1 all-cause hospitalization (mean 1.11 [SD = 0.98]) per year, with a mean length of stay (LOS) of 7.19 [SD = 8.69] days. Within 12 months post-index, 85.7% of these patients experienced an all-cause hospitalization, with 29.6% having HF-related hospitalization (mean 0.18 [0.36]) and mean LOS of 5.85 [5.45] days. More than 60% of patients continued on the same therapy after all-cause or HF hospitalization. More patients on multiple therapies remained on the same treatment (73%-89%) compared with those treated with monotherapy (60%-73%) after the first HF hospitalization. Among patients untreated before hospitalization, 9.8% and 17% received treatment after all-cause and HF hospitalization, respectively. During the entire study period (median 28 months), 29% of patients did not have a prescription fill for HF-specific treatments. The median PDC was > 0.65, and considering a gap of 30 days between ends of supply from 1 medication fill to the subsequent fill, persistence ranged from 41% (AA) to 52% (BB). CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this claims database analysis among 235,758 HF patients suggest that more than one third of newly diagnosed HF patients do not receive HF-specific medication within 30 days following initial diagnosis. Despite ACCF/AHA recommendations of initiating treatment with a combination of 2 HF drug classes, only 40% of patients had a prescription fill for bi-therapy. Hospitalization did not have a major impact on HF therapy prescribing patterns. To our knowledge, this is the first study to establish the impact of hospitalization on HF-specific treatment among newly diagnosed patients. Adherence and persistence were moderate across all HF therapies of interest. This analysis reveals the need for further research to better understand the reasons for the demonstrated delay in HF treatment initiation and limited use of guideline-directed medical therapy after initial diagnosis. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Deschaseaux, McSharry, Hudson, Agrawal, and Turner are permanent employees of Novartis. Concept and study design were contributed by Deschaseaux, Hudson, and Turner, along with McSharry. McSharry took the lead in data collection, along with Deschaseaux, Hudson, and Turner. Data interpretation was performed by Hudson, along with the other authors. The manuscript was written by Agrawal, along with Deschaseaux and Turner, and revised by Deschaseaux and Turner, along with the other authors.

Hypoglycemia hospitalization frequency in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comparison of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and insulin secretagogues using the French health insurance database.

AIM: We aimed to compare the frequency of severe hypoglycemia leading to hospitalization (HH) and emergency visits (EV) for any cause in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus exposed to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (DPP4-i) versus those exposed to insulin secretagogues (IS; sulfonylureas or glinides). METHODS: Data were extracted from the EGB (Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires) database, comprising a representative sample of ~1% of patients registered in the French National Health Insurance System (~600,000 patients). Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients exposed to regimens containing either a DPP4-i (excluding treatment with IS, insulin, or glucagon-like peptide 1 analog) or IS (excluding treatment with insulin and any incretin therapy) between 2009 and 2012 were selected. HH and EV during the exposure periods were identified in both cohorts. A similar analysis was conducted considering vildagliptin alone versus IS. Comparative analyses adjusting for covariates within the model (subjects matched for key characteristics) and using multinomial regression models were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 7,152 patients exposed to any DPP4-i and 1,440 patients exposed to vildagliptin were compared to 10,019 patients exposed to IS. Eight patients (0.11%) from the DPP4-i cohort and none from the vildagliptin cohort (0.0%) were hospitalized for hypoglycemia versus 130 patients (1.30%) from the IS cohort (138 hospitalizations) (P=0.02 and P<0.0001, respectively). Crude rates of HH/1,000 patient-years were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) in the DPP4-i cohort, 0.0 in the vildagliptin cohort (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0), versus 5.6 (95% CI, 4.7; 6.6) in the IS cohort (P<0.0001). After adjustments, rates per 1,000 patient-years of HH were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) with DPP4-i versus 7.5 (95% CI: 6.0; 9.2) with IS (P<0.0001), and 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0) with vildagliptin versus 13.6 (95% CI: 10.4; 17.5) with IS (P<0.0001). Adjusted EV rates were also significantly lower with all DPP4-i or with vildagliptin, as compared to IS (P<0.0001). Consistent results were found when considering only treatment initiations for all compared cohorts. CONCLUSION: HH and EV were significantly less frequent in patients exposed to any DPP4-i or to vildagliptin versus IS. These real-life data should be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of the drugs.

The burden of preserved ejection fraction heart failure in a real-world Swedish patient population.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate resource use and associated costs in patients with a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF) in Sweden. METHODS: This retrospective study identified real-world patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis code for heart failure (I50) for the period between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006 from electronic medical records of primary care centers in Uppsala County Council, and in the Swedish patient registry data. Patients were categorized as having HF-PEF (left ventricle ejection fraction [LVEF] > 50%) during the index period. The study assessed medication utilization, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and associated healthcare costs, as well as the incidence rates and time to all-cause and heart failure mortality following the index period. RESULTS: The study included 137 HF-PEF patients with a mean age of 77.1 (SD = 9.1) years. Over 50% of HF-PEF patients were female and hypertensive. Nearly all patients received ≥ 1 medication post-index. Patients had an average of 1.5 heart failure related hospitalizations per follow-up year. The average annual per patient cost for the management of a HF-PEF patient was found in Sweden to be Swedish Krona (SEK) 108,246 (EURO [EUR] 11,344). Hospitalizations contributed to more than 80% of the total cost. All-cause mortality over the 18-month study period was 25.5%, and more than 50% of these deaths occurred within 1 year of index. LIMITATIONS: Due to the limitations of registry data, it is not possible to confirm the HF diagnosis, and therefore the accuracy of registry records must be assumed. Other factors such as short follow-up time, the study-mandated LVEF assessment, and a lack of drug duration data may also have an impact on the study results. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality was high in the HF-PEF population, with more than half of patients dying within 1 year of study follow-up. Study results also indicate that 60% of HF-PEF patients have ≥ 1 hospitalization during follow-up. Hospitalizations, especially heart failure related admissions, represent a substantial proportion of the total healthcare burden of patients with HF-PEF in Sweden.

The Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure (CBQ-HF): face and content validity.

BACKGROUND: A new caregiver burden questionnaire for heart failure (CBQ-HF v1.0) was developed based on previously conducted qualitative interviews with HF caregivers and with input from HF clinical experts. Version 1.0 of the CBQ-HF included 41 items measuring the burden associated with caregiving in the following domains: physical, emotional/psychological, social, and impact on caregiver's life. Following initial development, the next stage was to evaluate caregivers' understanding of the questionnaire items and their conceptual relevance. METHODS: To evaluate the face and content validity of the new questionnaire, cognitive interviews were conducted with caregivers of heart failure patients. The cognitive interviews included a "think aloud" exercise as the patient completed the CBQ-HF, followed by more specific probing questions to better understand caregivers' understanding, interpretation and the relevance of the instructions, items, response scales and recall period. RESULTS: Eighteen caregivers of heart failure patients were recruited. The mean age of the caregivers was 50 years (SD = 10.2). Eighty-three percent of caregivers were female and most commonly the patient was either a spouse (44%) or a parent (28%). Among the patients 55% were NYHA Class 2 and 45% were NYHA Class 3 or 4. The caregiver cognitive interviews demonstrated that the CBQ-HF was well understood, relevant and consistently interpreted. From the initial 41 item questionnaire, fifteen items were deleted due to conceptual overlap and/or item redundancy. The final 26-item CBQ-HF (v3.0) uses a 5-point Likert severity scale, assessing 4 domains of physical, emotional/psychological, social and lifestyle burdens using a 4-week recall period. CONCLUSIONS: The CBQ-HF (v3.0) is a comprehensive and relevant measure of subjective caregiver burden with strong content validity. This study has established that the CBQ-HF (v3.0) has strong face and content validity and should be valuable as an outcomes measure to help understand and monitor the relationship between patient heart failure severity and caregiver burden. A Translatability AssessmentSM of the measure has since been performed confirming the cultural appropriateness of the measure and psychometric validation is planned for the future to further explore the reliability, and validity of the new questionnaire in a larger caregiver sample.

Clinical outcomes of glaucoma treatments over a patient lifetime: a Markov model.

PURPOSE: To quantify the clinical outcome of glaucoma treatment over a patient's lifetime to identify treatment parameters that would preserve vision across a population. METHODS: A Markov model was used to reproduce glaucoma treatments and clinical responses over a patient's lifetime. Markov states comprised first-line to fourth-line pharmacological treatments, no treatment, laser therapy, surgery, blindness, and death. All patients began with first-line treatment and passed to the next treatment in line following a failure. After each failure, and always after a fourth-line failure, patients could receive laser therapy or surgery, followed by no treatment or a new first-line treatment. Transitional probabilities came from a cross-sectional study and national statistics. Sensitivity analyses were based on second order Monte-Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Cohort demographics were average age 59.7 years, life expectancy 22.5 years, females 54.0%. Treatment durations (months) for a patient with ocular hypertension were first-line (89), second-line (49), third-line (41), and no treatment (44); laser interventions numbered 1.251 and surgical 0.882. For a patient with glaucoma the corresponding values were 70, 44, 40, 18, 42, 1.197, and 0.842. First-line or second-line drugs best at controlling intraocular pressure (IOP) reduced laser therapy, surgery, and the prevalence of blindness. The most effective drug should be prescribed first-line. According to our model drugs specifically able to arrest disease progression would be more beneficial than intraocular pressure control. CONCLUSION: More powerful glaucoma medication (first-line or second-line) would contribute to the preservation of long-term vision.