Relative short-term efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine versus vortioxetine in adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder.

Agomelatine and vortioxetine are antidepressants with different mechanisms of action compared to other pharmaceutical treatment options. The objective of this present analysis is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of agomelatine (25-50 mg) compared to vortioxetine (10-15-20 mg) in adult patients with major depressive disorder. We performed an adjusted indirect comparison using placebo as a common control. The main outcomes were efficacy (response to treatment by Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale/Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and acceptability (withdrawal rate for any reason or due to adverse events). 10 agomelatine and 11 vortioxetine studies were included in the analysis. For efficacy, no difference was shown between agomelatine and vortioxetine (E[95% CI] = -0.03 [-0.12;0.05]). For acceptability, no significant difference was found between both antidepressants. These findings substantiate current understanding that most antidepressants are of similar average efficacy and tolerability. Such equivalent therapeutic benefit of both compounds, measured by a quantitative clinical research approach, has to be discussed with the knowledge of a qualitative estimation in routine practice.

QTWiST analysis of the RECOURSE trial of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: A Quality-adjusted Time WIthout Symptoms of disease or Toxicity (QTWiST) analysis was carried out to assess quality-adjusted survival time in the RECOURSE trial of trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Duration of overall survival in the RECOURSE trial (n=798 patients) was partitioned into three discrete health states: toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms or toxicity (TWIST) and relapse (REL). TOX was defined as time spent with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) after randomisation and before progression or censoring. AEs were limited to those related to trifluridine/tipiracil and known to affect quality of life (QoL) (ie, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, fatigue/asthaenia, anorexia and febrile neutropaenia). The estimated mean duration of each state, weighted by a utility coefficient representing QoL, was combined into a global QTWiST score. RESULTS: In the RECOURSE trial, overall survival was 7.1 months with trifluridine/tipiracil versus 5.3 months with placebo. Patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil spent longer in each health state than placebo recipients. Using assumed utility coefficients of 1 for TWIST and 0.5 for TOX and REL, the QTWiST was 5.48 months for the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 3.98 months for the placebo group, a difference of 1.5 (95% CI 1.49 to 1.52) months in favour of trifluridine/tipiracil. A sensitivity analysis using large variations in utility coefficients for TOX and REL produced a range of only approximately 0.5 months from minimum to maximum QTWiST. CONCLUSIONS: Quality-adjusted survival, as measured by QTWiST, shows clinically meaningful improvements in patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in pretreated mCRC.

A simple way to unify multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) using a Dirichlet distribution in benefit-risk assessment.

Quantitative methodologies have been proposed to support decision making in drug development and monitoring. In particular, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) are useful tools to assess the benefit-risk ratio of medicines according to the performances of the treatments on several criteria, accounting for the preferences of the decision makers regarding the relative importance of these criteria. However, even in its probabilistic form, MCDA requires the exact elicitations of the weights of the criteria by the decision makers, which may be difficult to achieve in practice. SMAA allows for more flexibility and can be used with unknown or partially known preferences, but it is less popular due to its increased complexity and the high degree of uncertainty in its results. In this paper, we propose a simple model as a generalization of MCDA and SMAA, by applying a Dirichlet distribution to the weights of the criteria and by making its parameters vary. This unique model permits to fit both MCDA and SMAA, and allows for a more extended exploration of the benefit-risk assessment of treatments. The precision of its results depends on the precision parameter of the Dirichlet distribution, which could be naturally interpreted as the strength of confidence of the decision makers in their elicitation of preferences.