Burden of Coronary Artery Disease and Peripheral Artery Disease: A Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Atherothrombotic disease, including coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), can lead to cardiovascular (CV) events, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, limb ischemia, heart failure, and CV death. AIM: Evaluate the humanistic and economic burden of CAD and PAD and identify unmet needs through a comprehensive literature review. METHODS: Relevant search terms were applied across online publication databases. Studies published between January 2010 and August 2017 meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria were selected; guidelines were also included. Two rounds of screening were applied to select studies of relevance. RESULTS: Worldwide data showed approximately 5-8% prevalence of CAD and 10-20% prevalence of PAD, dependent on the study design, average age, gender, and geographical location. Data from the REACH registry indicated that 18-35% of patients with CAD and 46-68% of patients with PAD had disease in one or more vascular beds. Use of medication to control modifiable CV risk factors was variable by country (lower in France than in Canada); statins and aspirin were the most widely used therapies in patients with chronic disease. Survival rates have improved with medical advancements, but there is an additional need to improve the humanistic burden of disease (i.e., associated disability and quality of life). The economic burden of atherothrombotic disease is high and expected to increase with increased survival and the aging population. CONCLUSION: CAD and PAD represent a substantial humanistic and economic burden worldwide, highlighting a need for new interventions to reduce the incidence of atherothrombotic disease.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes.

OBJECTIVE: Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012-2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. RESULTS were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.

Synthesis and comparison of the meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of memantine in moderate to severe stages of Alzheimer's disease.

The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, memantine, is licensed for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). Memantine is administered both as a monotherapy and as an add-on therapy in patients already receiving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Several meta-analyses have been published that examine the efficacy of memantine in the treatment of AD, based on clinical trial data. However, different disease severities and concomitant medication use in the trial populations means that synthesis of this data is challenging with numerous methodological decisions required. The main objectives of this study were to review the methodologies of different meta-analyses, assess the impact of specific methodological approaches on efficacy results, and to help interpret previous meta-analyses results concerning the efficacy of memantine in moderate to severe stages of AD. The methodologies of five meta-analyses were reviewed in terms of the included trials, combination of data, choice of outcome, and analysis methods. Results were extracted and compared in line with the methodological approach taken. The most robust results were observed on cognition, activities of daily living, and overall assessment, where memantine showed a consistent benefit over placebo. The benefit of memantine on behavioral symptoms was also demonstrated, but results were more heterogeneous. Variability could not be explained by baseline severity and concomitant treatment alone. It is stressed that interpretation of meta-analysis results must be considered within the context of the methodological approach. Overall, results from individual clinical trials and from meta-analyses demonstrate that memantine represents a valuable treatment option in AD.