Comparative effectiveness of biological medicines in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis including aggregate results from reanalysed individual patient data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of biological medicines in rheumatoid arthritis in sufficiently similar patient populations, based on the current definitions of key outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis including aggregate results from reanalysed individual patient data. DATA SOURCES: Clinical study reports and aggregate results from reanalyses of individual patient data on key outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis provided by study sponsors for studies conducted up to 2017, and several databases and registries from inception up to February 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials investigating patient relevant outcomes in adults with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological medicines in combination with methotrexate after methotrexate failure for at least 24 weeks. RESULTS: 45 eligible trials were identified. Combining data from clinical study reports and aggregate results from reanalyses of individual patient data allowed extensive analyses yielding sufficiently similar populations and homogeneous study results for network meta-analyses, including up to 35 studies on eight biological medicines combined with methotrexate. These analyses showed few statistically significant differences between the combination treatments. For example, anakinra showed less benefit than almost all the other seven biological medicines regarding clinical remission or low disease activity (clinical disease activity index ≤2.8 or ≤10, respectively) and certolizumab pegol showed more harm than the other seven biological medicines regarding serious adverse events or infections. Some outcomes had very wide 95% confidence intervals, potentially implying unidentified differences between the eight biological medicines, but wide 95% confidence intervals were less prominent for low disease activity, serious adverse events, and infections. Owing to a lack of head-to-head trials, results were mainly based on indirect comparisons with a limited number of studies, and recently approved Janus kinase inhibitors could not be included. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure, only minor differences in benefits and harms were seen between biological medicines in combination with methotrexate. However, the analysis was hampered by a lack of long term direct comparisons. The substantial information gain achieved by the reanalysis of individual patient data calls for the routine availability of individual patient data.

Information on new drugs at market entry: retrospective analysis of health technology assessment reports versus regulatory reports, journal publications, and registry reports.

BACKGROUND: When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug's added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The "dossier assessment" is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics ("approved subpopulations"). OBJECTIVE: To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources-that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. DATA SOURCES: All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers. DATA ANALYSIS: We assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported (including items not reported at all)." For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.Results 15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of total study populations, the AMNOG documents reached the highest grade of completeness, with about 90% of methods and results items completely reported. In non-AMNOG documents, the rate was 75% for methods and 52% for results items; journal publications achieved the best rates, followed by European public assessment reports and registry reports. The analysis of approved subpopulations showed poorer complete reporting of results items, particularly in non-AMNOG documents (non-AMNOG versus AMNOG: 11% v 71% for overall results items and 5% v 70% for patient relevant outcomes). The main limitation of our analysis is the small sample size. CONCLUSION: Conventional, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on new drugs, especially on patient relevant outcomes in approved subpopulations. This type of information is largely available in AMNOG documents, albeit only partly in English. The AMNOG approach could be used internationally to develop a comprehensive publication model for clinical studies and thus represents a key open access measure.

Systematic review of surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia and presentation of an approach to investigate therapeutic equivalence (non-inferiority).

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the potential additional benefit of non-standard vs standard surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to present a new methodological approach to investigate therapeutic equivalence (non-inferiority) regarding symptom reduction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We conducted a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (last search: 10/2009) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). • Eligible studies were those that included patients with symptomatic BPH requiring surgical treatment and which compared non-standard procedures (e.g. minimally invasive technologies) with standard ones (e.g. transurethral resection of the prostate, TURP). In addition, only studies analysing patient-relevant outcomes were considered (e.g. irritative and obstructive symptoms, length of hospital stay, quality of life and adverse events). • The main outcome of interest for the present analysis was superiority or non-inferiority for symptom reduction. • As no trial investigated non-inferiority, we defined a non-inferiority threshold (0.25 standard deviation) on the basis of published literature. If a non-standard procedure showed non-inferiority for symptom reduction, additional outcomes were assessed. Meta-analyses were conducted if feasible and meaningful. RESULTS: • In all, 43 mainly low-quality trials (RCTs only) compared nine non-standard surgical treatments with standard ones. • Mean follow-up ranged from 6 to 84 months. • No non-standard procedure was superior for symptom reduction. Non-inferiority for symptom reduction was shown in patients who had undergone holmium laser resection of the prostate (HoLRP) or thulium laser resection of the prostate (TmLRP). • As procedural advantages (e.g. no occurrence of transurethral resection syndrome) and other advantages (e.g. shortened hospital stay) were found, an indication of an additional benefit of HoLRP and TmLRP was determined. CONCLUSIONS: • No proof of superiority for symptom reduction has been shown for non-standard surgical treatments in patients with BPH. • There is a lack of high-quality RCTs and trials designed to investigate non-inferiority. • Future studies should define a non-inferiority threshold (ideally, uniform) a priori, so that results of individual studies are interpretable and comparable, and future systematic reviews should consider this issue.