Clinical Drug Investigation最新文献

Background and objectives: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed significant clinical benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess its cost effectiveness from the perspective of Chinese health care system.

Methods: A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the Phase 3 randomized CARES-310 clinical trial data. Health state utility values were obtained from the CARES-310 clinical trial, and direct medical costs were derived from the relevant literature and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.

Results: In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were 0.41 QALYs and $13,684.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $33,619.98/QALY, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were $35,920.01 and $29,717.98 in patients with ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of camrelizumab, the proportion of patients receiving subsequent treatment in the camrelizumab plus rivoceranib group, and the cost of rivoceranib were the most significant factors in the base-case analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of cost effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib were 61.27%, 51.46%, and 82.78% for any grade, and ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively.

Conclusions: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was more cost effective than sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in the Chinese setting.

Background and objectives: Two oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, atogepant and rimegepant, were approved in 2021 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM), yet no formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been published. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atogepant 60 mg and rimegepant 75 mg compared with placebo.

Methods: A decision tree model was constructed over a 1-year time horizon from a US societal perspective. Patient cohorts were simulated using baseline and change from baseline monthly migraine days (MMDs) reported in the trials to incorporate responder rates and within patient response into the model. Due to heterogeneity between the trial populations, each medication was compared with its respective trial's placebo group. Direct healthcare resource costs, productivity costs, acute medication costs, and quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature.

Results: The atogepant cohort experienced an incremental increase in healthcare plus productivity costs of $11,978 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.026 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of more than $450,000/QALY. The rimegepant cohort experienced an incremental increase of $21,692 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.024 QALYs. This yields an ICER of more than $890,000/QALY when comparing rimegepant with placebo. Cost savings between atogepant and atogepant placebo were greatest with respect to acute medication costs at $735 of savings over 1 year, followed by savings of $135 for healthcare resource utilization and $34 for productivity costs. A similar relationship was seen between rimegepant and rimegepant placebo. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis found that monthly acquisition costs of atogepant and rimegepant had the largest impact on the ICER, respectively.

Conclusions: Atogepant and rimegepant were both unable to meet generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds < 150,0000/QALY. Additional studies are needed to better guide decision making regarding oral CGRPs' place in therapy.

Background and objectives: Although thromboembolic events (TEEs) have been reported with the use of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), their association remains largely unknown. In this study, we aimed to provide a comprehensive review of TEEs associated with EGFR-TKIs.

Methods: We collected EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib) adverse reaction reports from 2015 Q1 to 2023 Q1 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Disproportionality analysis was conducted to identify thromboembolic adverse events associated with EGFR-TKIs by comparing them with the overall FAERS database according to the reporting odds ratio (ROR). Associated factors were explored using univariate logistic regression.

Results: We identified 1068 reports of TEEs associated with EGFR-TKIs (1.24% accounts for all TEEs). Affected patients were females (49.72%) and those older than 65 years (41.20%). The reported TEE case fatality was 30.24%. The median time to onset (TTO) of all cases was 39 days [interquartile range (IQR) 11-161], and the median TTO of fatalities [31 days (IQR 10-116)] was significantly shorter than that of non-fatal cases [46 days (IQR 12-186)].

Conclusion: This study yielded three key findings. Firstly, EGFR-TKIs seem to exhibit prothrombotic effects, elevating the risk of TEEs. Secondly, the clinical outcomes of TEEs associated with EGFR-TKIs were poor. Thirdly, most TEEs occurred within the initial 3 months, and fatal cases occurred earlier than non-fatal cases.

Background and objectives: Long-term treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors leads to initial changes in disease activity that can predict a late treatment response. This observational and retrospective study aimed to determine when it is possible to foresee the response to therapy in the case of long-standing rheumatoid arthritis comparing also the efficacy of the original biologics with their biosimilars.

Methods: A total of 1598 patients were recruited and treated with the original biologics, adalimumab and etanercept, or with biosimilars. Patients were monitored over a period of 48 months and disease activity scores (28-Joint Disease Activity Score, Simplified Disease Activity Index, and Clinical Disease Activity Index) were measured every 6 months.

Results: No differences in disease activity levels were observed in etanercept versus biosimilars (GP2015/SB4) and adalimumab versus biosimilar (GP2017) patient groups. All scores significantly decreased in all treatments during the first 18 months of therapy, and after 24 months reached a minimum that lasted up to 48 months.

Conclusions: We conclude that biosimilars of adalimumab and etanercept have equivalent effectiveness over a long period of time compared to their originator drugs, and also that the levels of disease activity after 6 months of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (originator drugs and biosimilars) might predict the response to therapy at 4 years in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis.

Background and objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been an unprecedented healthcare crisis, one that threatened to overwhelm health systems and prompted an urgent need for early treatment options for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomised clinical trials established the safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) early in the pandemic; in vitro data subsequently led to use of the mAbs being discontinued, without clear evidence on how these data were linked to outcomes. In this study, we describe and compare real-world outcomes for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab versus untreated patients.

Methods: Electronic health records from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) were used to identify US patients (aged ≥ 12 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 (positive test or ICD-10: U07.1) in an ambulatory setting (27 September 2021-30 April 2022) who met Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) high-risk criteria. Patients receiving the mAb sotrovimab within 10 days of diagnosis were assigned to the sotrovimab cohort, with the day of infusion as the index date. Untreated patients (no evidence of early mAb treatment, prophylactic mAb or oral antiviral treatment) were assigned to the untreated cohort, with an imputed index date based on the time distribution between diagnosis and sotrovimab infusion in the sotrovimab cohort. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation or death (both all-cause) within 29 days of index, reported as descriptive rate and adjusted [via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)] odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Of nearly 2.9 million patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during the analysis period, 4992 met the criteria for the sotrovimab cohort, and 541,325 were included in the untreated cohort. Before weighting, significant differences were noted between the cohorts; for example, patients in the sotrovimab cohort were older (60 years versus 54 years), were more likely to be white (85% versus 75%) and met more EUA criteria (mean 3.1 versus 2.2) versus the untreated cohort. The proportions of patients with 29-day hospitalisation or death were 3.5% (176/4992) and 4.5% (24,163/541,325) in the sotrovimab and untreated cohorts, respectively (unadjusted OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.91; p = 0.001). In adjusted analysis, sotrovimab was associated with a 25% reduction in the odds of hospitalisation or death compared with the untreated cohort (IPTW-adjusted OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.92; p = 0.005).

Conclusions: Sotrovimab demonstrated clinical effectiveness in preventing severe outcomes (hospitalisation, mortality) in the period 27 September 2021-30 April 2022, which included Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants and an early surge of Omicron BA.2 variant.

Background and objectives: Data are limited regarding the safety associated with administering valproate sodium by intravenous push (IVP) compared with intravenous piggyback (IVPB). The objective of this retrospective pre-post analysis was to compare the safety profile of valproate administration via IVPB from March to May 2022 and IVP from June to August 2022.

Methods: A total of 890 IVPB and 440 IVP administrations were included. The major endpoint of this analysis was the incidence of infusion site reactions (infiltration or phlebitis).

Results: The incidence of documented intravenous (IV) site reactions demonstrated minimal differences between both IVPB and IVP administration cohorts. Based on the Naranjo algorithm, all IVPB and IVP infusion site reactions were classified as possible or doubtful. Additional safety endpoints included bradycardia, hypotension, or sedation attributable to valproate sodium administration. Similar safety profiles were observed, including valproate-associated bradycardia, hypotension, and sedation events. All safety events were further classified as possible or doubtful by the Naranjo algorithm. Time from pharmacist verification to valproate administration was also collected. The mean time from pharmacist order verification to valproate administration was significantly faster in the IVP cohort compared to the IVPB cohort.

Conclusion: IVP valproate administration may be considered safe, allowing for more optimal clinical and operational outcomes in the acute care setting.

Background and objective: The relationship between hyperuricemia and mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is considerably controversial. Additionally, the strategy of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has not been evaluated in patients with ACS with hyperuricemia. This study aims to evaluate the impact of hyperuricemia on the prognosis of ACS and explore the efficacy of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients with hyperuricemia.

Methods: The study enrolled 4319 patients divided into hyperuricemia (HUA, n = 1060) and normouricemia (NUA, n = 3259) groups. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Results: Hyperuricemia significantly increased the risk of all-cause death compared with patients with NUA at 7 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 4.292, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.727-10.67]; P = 0.002), 14 days (adjusted HR: 2.871, 95% CI 1.326-6.219; P = 0.0074), 30 days (adjusted HR: 2.168, 95% CI 1.056-4.453; P = 0.035), 3 months (adjusted HR: 2.018, 95% CI 1.152-3.533; P = 0.0144) and 1 year (adjusted HR: 1.702, 95% CI 1.137-2.548; P = 0.009). No significant difference was found between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in 1-year all-cause mortality [7.0% versus 5.5%, adjusted HR: 1.114 (95% CI 0.609-2.037), P = 0.725] among patients with concomitant hyperuricemia.

Conclusion: Hyperuricemia was independently related to an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel concerning all-cause and cardiovascular death in patients with hyperuricemia.

The selection of an inhaler device is a key component of respiratory disease management. However, there is a lack of clarity surrounding inhaler resistance and how it impacts inhaler selection. The most common inhaler types are dry powder inhalers (DPIs) that have internal resistance and pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) that use propellants to deliver the drug dose to the airways. Inhaler resistance varies across the DPIs available on the market, depending largely on the design geometry of the device but also partially on formulation parameters. Factors influencing inhaler choice include measures such as flow rate or pressure drop as well as inhaler technique and patient preference, both of which can lead to improved adherence and outcomes. For optimal disease outcomes, device selection should be individualised, inhaler technique optimised and patient preference considered. By addressing the common clinically relevant questions, this paper aims to demystify how DPI resistance should guide the selection of the right device for the right patient.