Real-Life Anemia Management Among Patients with Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease in Three European Countries.

Background: Anemia is prevalent among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet current evidence indicates that treatment may not adhere to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines. We aimed to document the management of patients with non-dialysis-dependent (NDD)-CKD receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) therapy in Europe. Methods: This retrospective, observational study extracted information from medical records in Germany, Spain, and the UK. Eligible patients were adults with NDD-CKD stages 3b-5 who initiated ESA therapy for anemia between January and December 2015. Anemia was defined as hemoglobin (Hb) <13.0 g/dL (males) or <12.0 g/dL (females). Data regarding ESA treatment, treatment response, concomitant iron therapy and blood transfusions were extracted up to 24 months post-ESA initiation, and data on CKD progression until abstraction date. Results: Eight hundred and forty-eight medical records were abstracted. Approximately 40% received no iron therapy prior to ESA initiation. At ESA initiation, mean ± standard deviation Hb level was 9.8 ± 1.0 g/dL. Most patients received darbepoetin alfa, and switching between ESAs was rare (8.5% of patients). Concomitant intravenous and oral iron therapy was prescribed for 36% and 42% of patients, respectively, during initial ESA therapy. Mean Hb levels reached the target level (10-12 g/dL) within 3-6 months of ESA initiation. Hb, transferrin saturation, and ferritin levels were infrequently monitored from 3 months post-ESA initiation. Rates of blood transfusion, dialysis, and diagnosis of end-stage renal disease were 16.4%, 19.3%, and 24.6%, respectively. Rates of kidney transplant and death were 4.8% and 8.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Among ESA-treated patients, ESA initiation was in accordance with KDIGO guidelines, but subsequent monitoring of Hb and iron deficiency were suboptimal.

A cohort study of duplicate faecal immunochemical testing in patients at risk of colorectal cancer from North-West England.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate if duplicate faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) sampling improves the negative and positive predictive value of patients thought to be at risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, we aimed to investigate whether the proportion of FIT-negative CRC missed by a single FIT test in symptomatic patients could be reduced by duplicate FIT testing. DESIGN: A retrospective service evaluation cohort study of the diagnostic accuracy of duplicate FIT testing. SETTING: Patients referred from primary care with suspected CRC to four secondary care trusts in North-West England. PARTICIPANTS: 28 622 patients over 18-years-old with lower gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of CRC who completed two FIT samples. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The performance of duplicate FIT for detecting CRC at a threshold of 10 µgHb/g. RESULTS: The sensitivity if either test was >10 µgHb/g was 0.978 (0.955-0.989), specificity was 0.662 (0.657-0.668), positive predictive value 0.031 (0.028-0.035) and negative predictive value 1.00 (0.999-1.00). Despite two-thirds of patients (18952) being negative following two tests, at this threshold only seven CRC were missed over a 26-month period. All seven patients had other high-risk features which should have prompted investigation. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in routine NHS practice, a duplicate FIT sample strategy together with clinical evaluation for evidence of anaemia and weight loss is superior to a single FIT sample alone and would allow symptomatic patients to be managed in primary care without the need for urgent referral to secondary care for urgent colonic imaging.

Assessing the robustness of direct meta-analysis in the presence of heterogeneity.

AIM: To assess robustness of findings in recent systematic reviews of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients in the presence of heterogeneity. METHODS: Relative efficacy was measured in seven direct comparisons of mean difference (MD) in average positive and negative syndrome scale total score and comparisons between conventional meta-analysis results and four alternate meta-analytic strategies using the difference in MD (ΔMD). RESULTS: MDs in positive and negative syndrome scale total score were smaller in the conventional meta-analyses than those for three of the four analytic strategies. Such differences were small (all ΔMD <4). No considerable differences in effect size were observed in the limit meta-analysis comparison (|ΔMD| <1). CONCLUSION: The analyses validated the systematic review results and demonstrate the value of confirmatory sensitivity analysis.

Comparative Efficacy of Treatments for Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: New therapies, including daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DRd) and daratumumab plus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (DVd), have recently been approved in the United States for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least 1 prior line of therapy. However, few treatments have been compared in head-to-head clinical trials to determine the most efficacious therapy. In an update of the POLLUX (Phase 3 Study Comparing DRd Versus Rd in Subjects with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma [RRMM]) trial, median progression-free survival (PFS) for DRd was not reached; the hazard ratio compared with Rd was 0.41. In an update of the CASTOR (Phase 3 Study Comparing DVd Versus Vd in Subjects with RRMM) trial, median PFS for DVd was 16.7 months, compared with 7.1 months for Vd with a PFS hazard ratio of 0.31. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate the relative efficacy of treatments for previously treated patients with MM. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BioSciences Information Service, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted from initiation to September 2016. Abstracts published by international congresses (2014-2016) and bibliographies of pertinent systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also searched. Eligible studies consisted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or long-term follow-up studies with >1 treatment arm assessing the efficacy or safety of MM therapies. An NMA was conducted by using Bayesian fixed effect mixed-treatment comparisons. Outcomes considered were hazard ratios for PFS and odds ratios for overall response rate (ORR). FINDINGS: In total, 108 articles reporting 27 RCTs were included in the NMA. Data formed 2 evidence networks: RCTs with DRd and RCTs with DVd. Primary analysis of PFS found that DRd and DVd had a higher probability of being the best treatments (probability, 0.997 and 0.999, respectively) and had the lowest risk of progression or death than other treatments approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of MM. Results from sensitivity analyses using time to progression as a proxy for missing PFS data were consistent. DRd and DVd also showed improved ORR compared with other treatments. Subgroup analyses of PFS in patients treated with only 1 prior therapy were like the results of the primary analyses. IMPLICATIONS: This NMA provides comparative efficacy for MM treatments not studied in head-to-head RCTs. The NMA suggests that, compared with other approved MM treatments in the United States, DRd and DVd have a higher probability of providing the longest PFS in patients who have received at least 1 prior therapy and in patients who have received only 1 prior therapy.

Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy of Biologics in the Treatment of Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Biological therapies are increasingly used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To compare the efficacy of biologics in adults with moderately-to-severely active UC, stratified by prior exposure to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify studies of biologics approved for UC. Network meta-analysis was conducted for endpoints at induction and maintenance. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis of induction treatment for anti-TNF therapy-naïve patients. All biologics were more effective than placebo in inducing clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing. Infliximab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over adalimumab in clinical response (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval (CrI)]: 2.19 [1.35-3.55]), clinical remission (OR [95% CrI]: 2.81 [1.49-5.49]), and mucosal healing (OR [95% CrI]: 2.23 [1.21-4.14]); there were no other significant differences between biologics for induction efficacy. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis of maintenance treatment, two studies rerandomised responder patients at end of induction, and three followed the same patients 'straight through'. To account for design differences, the number of responders at end of induction was assumed to be equivalent to the number rerandomised. Vedolizumab showed significantly different durable clinical response from comparators (OR [95% CrI] infliximab 3.18 [1.14-9.20], golimumab 2.33 [1.04-5.41], and adalimumab 3.96 [1.67-9.84]). In anti-TNF therapy-experienced patients, only vedolizumab and adalimumab could be compared. At induction, no significant differences in efficacy were seen. During maintenance, vedolizumab showed significantly improved rates of mucosal healing versus adalimumab (OR [95% CrI]: 6.72 [1.36-41.0]). CONCLUSIONS: This study expands the understanding of comparative efficacies of biologic treatments for UC, encompassing outcomes and populations not previously studied. All biologic treatments were effective for UC during induction. Vedolizumab demonstrated possible clinical benefits in the maintenance setting versus all comparators, irrespective of prior anti-TNF exposure and after adjusting for differences in study design.