Acquadro C.,Mapi Research Trust |
Hematology | Year: 2015
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are any outcome evaluated directly by the patient himself and based on the patient's perception of a disease and its treatment(s). PROs are direct outcome measures that can be used as clinical meaningful endpoints to characterize treatment benefit. They provide unique and important information about the effect of treatment from a patient's view. However, PROs will only be considered adequate if the assessment is well-defined and reliable. In 2009, the FDA has issued a guidance, which defines good measurement principles to consider for PRO measures intended to give evidence of treatment benefit in drug development. In hematologic clinical trials, when applied rigorously, they may be used to evaluate overall treatment effectiveness, treatment toxicity, and quality of patient's well-being at short-term and long-term after treatment from a patient's perspective. In situations in which multiple treatment options exist with similar survival outcome or if a new therapeutic strategy needs to be evaluated, the inclusion of PROs as an endpoint can provide additional data and help in clinical decision making. Given the diversity of the hematological field, the approach to measurement needs to be tailored for each specific situation. The importance of PROs in hematologic diseases has been highlighted in a number of international recommendations. In addition, new perspectives in the regulatory field will enhance the inclusion of PRO endpoints in clinical trials in hematology, allowing the voice of the patients with hematologic diseases to be taken into greater consideration in the development of new drugs.
Jansen J.P.,Redwood Outcomes |
Jansen J.P.,Tufts University |
Vieira M.C.,Previously at Mapi |
Statistics in Medicine | Year: 2015
Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often based on one treatment effect measure per study. However, many studies report data at multiple time points. Furthermore, not all studies measure the outcomes at the same time points. As an alternative to a network meta-analysis based on a synthesis of the results at one time point, a network meta-analysis method is presented that allows for the simultaneous analysis of outcomes at multiple time points. The development of outcomes over time of interventions compared in an RCT is modeled with fractional polynomials, and the differences between the parameters of these polynomials within a trial are synthesized across studies with a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The proposed models are illustrated with an analysis of RCTs evaluating interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee. Fixed and random effects second order fractional polynomials were applied to the case study. Network meta-analysis with models that represent the treatment effects in terms of several parameters using fractional polynomials can be considered a useful addition to models for network meta-analysis of repeated measures previously proposed. When RCTs report treatment effects at multiple follow-up times, these models can be used to synthesize the results even if reporting times differ across the studies. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Santagostino E.,Maggiore Hospital Policlinico |
Lentz S.R.,University of Iowa |
Busk A.K.,Novo Nordisk AS |
Regnault A.,Mapi |
Iorio A.,McMaster University
Haemophilia | Year: 2014
Haemophilia and its treatment interfere with patients' life, so health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should be assessed when evaluating treatments. This study investigated the HRQoL of patients with haemophilia A treated prophylactically with a new recombinant factor VIII. Two phase 3 trials investigated turoctocog alfa in patients with severe haemophilia A: one in children, one in adults and adolescents. HRQoL was a secondary endpoint assessed by the HAEMO-QOL age-specific, self-administered questionnaires. Parent-completed versions were also included for parents of children and adolescents. All HAEMO-QOL questionnaires allow the calculation of domain-specific and total scores ranging from 0 to 100, lower scores indicating better HRQoL. Mean change in all scores was described for 25 children aged 4-7 years, 21 children aged 8-12 years, 18 adolescents aged 13-18 years and 129 adults, overall, and according to the treatment regimen received prior to the study (on-demand; prophylaxis; mixed). Mean changes in HAEMO-QOL total score were 1.4 for children aged 4-7 years, -2.6 for children aged 8-12 years, -5.8 for adolescents and -1.6 for adults. In parent-completed versions, mean changes in total score were -6.0 for children aged 4-7 years, -4.7 for children aged 8-12 years, and -10.0 for adolescents. Patients receiving on-demand treatment before the trial showed greater improvement in HRQoL scores than patients already on prophylaxis. HRQoL of patients remained fairly stable over the course of the trials. However, improvements were observed for adolescents. Switching to prophylaxis was identified as a potential driver of improvement of HRQoL in patients with haemophilia A. © 2014 The Authors. Haemophilia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Buckley F.,Mapi |
Finckh A.,University of Geneva |
Huizinga T.W.J.,Leiden University |
Dejonckheere F.,Hoffmann-La Roche |
Jansen J.P.,Tufts University
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy | Year: 2015
BACKGROUND: Given the availability of a number of alternative biologic treatment options and other novel disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), clinicians are faced with an increasingly challenging choice regarding optimal treatment. Biologics are usually combined with traditional DMARDs, primarily methotrexate (MTX), but some biologics and tofacitinib (together referred to in this article as novel DMARDs) have been shown to be efficacious as monotherapy as well. In real-world practice, approximately one-third of RA patients receiving biologics are on monotherapy, primarily because of intolerance of, or noncompliance with, MTX. Limited data, however, are available analyzing the effectiveness of monotherapy compared with combination therapy across novel DMARDs. OBJECTIVE: To compare American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses to approved novel DMARDs used as monotherapy or as combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) at 24 weeks in RA patients who have shown inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (DMARD-IR). METHODS: Through a systematic review of the literature, we identified randomized controlled trials that assessed approved novel DMARDs used as monotherapy or as combination therapy with MTX in DMARD-IR RA patients. Twenty-eight RCTs were identified that evaluated abatacept, anakinra, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib. ACR responses at 24 weeks were extracted and combined by means of Bayesian network meta-analyses. RESULTS: With the exception of anakinra plus MTX, which was less efficacious, most novel DMARDs, when used in combination with MTX, demonstrated comparable ACR responses. When novel DMARDs were used as monotherapies, greater ACR20/50/70 responses were observed with tocilizumab than with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (aTNF) or tofacitinib. Furthermore, ACR20/50/70 responses with tocilizumab plus MTX were similar to those with tocilizumab monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] for the indirect comparison = 1.08, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.40-2.84; OR = 1.24, CrI = 0.44-3.61; OR = 0.95, CrI = 0.33-2.72, respectively), whereas greater responses were observed with aTNF plus MTX than with aTNF monotherapy (OR = 2.41, CrI = 0.51-11.61; OR = 2.85, CrI = 0.51-17.67; OR = 1.28, CrI = 0.21- 8.42, respectively). Relative efficacy estimates for the indirect comparison of tofacitinib plus MTX with tofacitinib monotherapy were very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that in combination with MTX most of the available novel DMARDs have similar levels of efficacy in DMARD-IR patients. As monotherapy, however, tocilizumab displayed higher ACR responses than aTNF or tofacitinib. ACR responses with tocilizumab plus MTX were similar to those with tocilizumab as monotherapy, whereas aTNF in combination with MTX demonstrated greater ACR responses than aTNF as monotherapy. © 2015, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.
Takizawa C.,Nestlé |
Thompson P.L.,Mapi |
Van Walsem A.,Mapi |
Faure C.,Mapi |
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease | Year: 2014
Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) weighs heavily on health expenditure and is strongly associated with increasing age. Due to population aging, increasing global prevalence of AD will pose huge challenges to public health and elderly care systems in all countries across the world.Objectives: This study aimed to better understand the burden of AD from a healthcare perspective.Methods: A systematic literature review of journal articles published between January 2002 and December 2012 was performed for studies conducted in France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA), using Medline, Embase, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database.Results: 3,288 references were initially retrieved, and 39 epidemiological and 66 economic publications were selected for data extraction. AD incidence rates greatly varied between countries; however, prevalence was more consistent across all included countries, ranging between 3-7%. Overall, medical costs were lower in France compared to other included countries and increased with AD severity, e.g., direct medical costs per year for mild AD ranged from 5,476 int$ in France to 27,380 int$ in Spain. Limitations, such as heterogeneous methodology and missing data, prevented the comparison of results across studies between countries or the conclusion of any trend over time.Conclusion: This review corroborates previous understanding that AD burden is high for both society and healthcare providers. Limitations regarding study heterogeneity restricted conclusions; further research is required. Stakeholders could benefit from new healthcare strategies addressing both epidemiological and economic aspects of AD. © 2015 - IOS Press and the authors.
Zeppetella G.,St. Clare Hospice |
Davies A.,Royal Surrey County Hospital |
Eijgelshoven I.,Mapi |
Jansen J.P.,Mapi |
Jansen J.P.,Tufts University
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management | Year: 2014
Context With many medications available for the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP), physicians may require additional guidance in selecting an appropriate medication to suit an individual patient's needs. Objectives To identify all the evidence and assess the relative clinical value of currently approved BTCP medications. Methods Following a systematic literature search (2007-2010), the results of 10 randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of BTCP medications (intranasal fentanyl spray [INFS], fentanyl pectin nasal spray, fentanyl sublingual tablets, fentanyl buccal soluble film, fentanyl buccal tablets, oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate, and morphine sulfate immediate release) were synthesized using a network meta-analysis. The main outcome was pain intensity difference (PID) relative to placebo up to 60 minutes after the intake of medication. Results INFS, fentanyl pectin nasal spray, fentanyl buccal tablet, and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate showed greater PIDs relative to placebo than other BTCP medications 15 minutes after intake. All other medications showed greater PIDs relative to placebo at 30 minutes, except morphine sulfate immediate release, which did not show efficacy over placebo until 45 minutes. Only INFS produced clinically meaningful pain relief (absolute PID 2) at 15 minutes. Conclusion From current evidence, although all BTCP medications provided pain relief within the time frames assessed, transmucosal fentanyl medications achieved a greater level of pain relief in a shorter time frame than placebo or oral morphine.
Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis
van Walsem A.,Mapi |
Pandhi S.,Novartis |
Nixon R.M.,Novartis |
Guyot P.,Mapi |
And 2 more authors.
Arthritis Research and Therapy | Year: 2015
Introduction: There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety. Results: Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib. Conclusions: The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions. © van Walsem et al.
Cope S.,Mapi |
Zhang J.,Novartis |
Saletan S.,Novartis |
Smiechowski B.,Mapi |
And 2 more authors.
BMC Medicine | Year: 2014
Background: The aim of this study is to outline a general process for assessing the feasibility of performing a valid network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to synthesize direct and indirect evidence for alternative treatments for a specific disease population.Methods: Several steps to assess the feasibility of an NMA are proposed based on existing recommendations. Next, a case study is used to illustrate this NMA feasibility assessment process in order to compare everolimus in combination with hormonal therapy to alternative chemotherapies in terms of progression-free survival for women with advanced breast cancer.Results: A general process for assessing the feasibility of an NMA is outlined that incorporates explicit steps to visualize the heterogeneity in terms of treatment and outcome characteristics (Part A) as well as the study and patient characteristics (Part B). Additionally, steps are performed to illustrate differences within and across different types of direct comparisons in terms of baseline risk (Part C) and observed treatment effects (Part D) since there is a risk that the treatment effect modifiers identified may not explain the observed heterogeneity or inconsistency in the results due to unexpected, unreported or unmeasured differences. Depending on the data available, alternative approaches are suggested: list assumptions, perform a meta-regression analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analyses, or summarize why an NMA is not feasible.Conclusions: The process outlined to assess the feasibility of an NMA provides a stepwise framework that will help to ensure that the underlying assumptions are systematically explored and that the risks (and benefits) of pooling and indirectly comparing treatment effects from RCTs for a particular research question are transparent. © 2014 Cope et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Jansen J.P.,Mapi |
Jansen J.P.,Tufts University |
Naci H.,The London School of Economics and Political Science
BMC Medicine | Year: 2013
Background: In the last decade, network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been introduced as an extension of pairwise meta-analysis. The advantage of network meta-analysis over standard pairwise meta-analysis is that it facilitates indirect comparisons of multiple interventions that have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. Although assumptions underlying pairwise meta-analyses are well understood, those concerning network meta-analyses are perceived to be more complex and prone to misinterpretation.Discussion: In this paper, we aim to provide a basic explanation when network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis. We focus on the primary role of effect modifiers, which are study and patient characteristics associated with treatment effects. Because network meta-analysis includes different trials comparing different interventions, the distribution of effect modifiers cannot only vary across studies for a particular comparison (as with standard pairwise meta-analysis, causing heterogeneity), but also between comparisons (causing inconsistency). If there is an imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers between different types of direct comparisons, the related indirect comparisons will be biased. If it can be assumed that this is not the case, network meta-analysis is as valid as pairwise meta-analysis.Summary: The validity of network meta-analysis is based on the underlying assumption that there is no imbalance in the distribution of effect modifiers across the different types of direct treatment comparisons, regardless of the structure of the evidence network. © 2013 Jansen and Naci; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
News Article | November 15, 2016
NEW YORK, Nov. 15, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Nearly half of surveyed manufacturing executives lack confidence their assets are protected from external threats, according to a new study from Deloitte and the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI) on "Cyber Risk in...