Health Economics and Outcomes of Surfactant Treatments for Respiratory Distress Syndrome Among Preterm Infants in US Level III/IV Neonatal Intensive Care Units.

OBJECTIVE: To compare length of stay (LOS), costs, mechanical ventilation (MV), and mortality in preterm infants treated in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) with beractant (BE), calfactant (CA), and poractant alfa (PA) for Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS). METHODS: This study evaluated preterm infants born between 2010 and 2013 with RDS diagnosis, gestational age of 25 to 36 weeks, birthweight of ≥500 g, and age of ≤2 days on first surfactant administration. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate all NICU outcomes. RESULTS: Of 13,240 infants meeting the study criteria, 4136 (31.2%) received BE, 2502 (18.9%) received CA, and 6602 (49.9%) received PA. Adjusted analyses estimated similar mean LOS (BE 26.7 days, CA 27.8 days, and PA 26.2 days) and hospital costs (BE: $50,929; CA: $50,785; and PA: $50,212). Compared to PA, BE and CA were associated with greater odds of MV use on day 3 (OR = 1.56 and 1.60, respectively) and day 7 (OR = 1.39 and 1.28, respectively; all p < 0.05). Adjusted NICU mortality was significantly higher only with CA vs PA (OR = 1.51; p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Adjusted NICU LOS and costs were similar among BE, CA, and PA. Infants receiving PA were less likely to be on MV at 3 and 7 days, and PA treatment was associated with lower odds of NICU mortality when compared to CA.

Sources of Safety Data and Statistical Strategies for Design and Analysis: Real World Insights.

BACKGROUND: Although randomized controlled clinical trials provide necessary information and serve as the basis for regulatory decision making, a significant gap exists between the evidence these trials provide and what the biomedical community needs. It is recognized that a wealth of data are routinely collected outside clinical trials. Such real-world data (RWD) are not of comparable quality, it does not have similar immunity from bias and confounding as data collected in randomized clinical trials, but it might offer additional understanding of the benefit-risk, provide new insights to different stakeholders, and aid in regulatory decision making. This can be especially true when rare but serious adverse events are considered because randomized clinical trials are often not large enough and have insufficient duration to address safety concerns fully. Also, the passage of the 21st Century Cures bill passed by Congress in 2016 means that several data sources outside traditional clinical trials will play a greater role in regulatory decision making. This manuscript is third in a series of articles from the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section Safety Working Group. METHODS: In this manuscript, authors reviewed some RWD sources and shared considerations for statistical strategies and methodologies needed to design and analyze observational safety studies and pragmatic trials. RESULTS: Authors presented case studies and shared recommendations for statistical methods necessary to design and analyze safety trials using RWD. CONCLUSIONS: RWD is an important source of safety data that contribute to the totality of safety information available to generate evidence for regulators, sponsors, payers, physicians, and patients. However, it is important to determine if such data are fit for purpose.

A retrospective real-world study of dapagliflozin versus other oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of dapagliflozin as add-on therapy to metformin has been assessed in randomized trials. However, its effectiveness has not been assessed in a US real-world setting. METHODS: Electronic medical record (EMR) data were used to compare clinical outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with dapagliflozin and metformin with or without other oral antidiabetic drugs (D + M ± OAD), versus metformin with at least 1 other OAD (M + OAD). Adult patients with T2D on these regimens from January 01, 2014, to February 28, 2015, were identified in a US EMR database, with the date of first prescription for dapagliflozin (D + M ± OAD) or other OAD (M + OAD) as the index date. Patients were observed for 12 months before the index date (baseline) and 12 months afterward (ie, follow-up). Patients in the M + OAD group were propensity score matched 1:1 to those in the D + M ± OAD group. Outcomes included change in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) level, weight, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP/DBP) from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1093 patients receiving M + OAD were matched to 1093 patients receiving D + M ± OAD. Compared with those given M + OAD, patients given D + M ± OAD had a greater reduction in A1C level (mean, -1.0% vs -0.7%; P <.01), greater weight loss (-1.8 kg vs -0.7 kg, P <.01), and greater change in SBP (-3.6 mm Hg vs -0.1 mm Hg, P <.01) and DBP (-2.0 mm Hg vs -0.6 mm Hg, P <.01) from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In current US clinical practice, patients receiving D + M ± OAD had greater reductions in important clinical outcomes of T2D-A1C level, weight loss, and blood pressure-versus patients receiving M + OAD. This study supports the use of dapagliflozin as add-on therapy to metformin with or without other OADs for patients with T2D.