No abstract

Introduction: Biologic treatments are increasingly being used in the management of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PSO). Bimekizumab is a selective inhibitor of both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F approved for the treatment of moderate to severe PSO. Although bimekizumab trials provide comparisons to secukinumab, adalimumab and ustekinumab, there are no further head-to-head comparisons of bimekizumab to other biologics. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the short-term efficacy of bimekizumab versus other biologic systemic therapies for moderate to severe PSO. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with moderate to severe PSO. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Database of Systematic Reviews and PsycINFO were searched on July 1, 2020. An enhanced multinomial Bayesian NMA model was used to evaluate the comparative efficacy in 50%, 75%, 90% and 100% improvement from baseline Psoriasis Area

Background: Hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis (hATTR amyloidosis) is a progressive, lifethreatening disease. Until recently, tafamidis was the only approved pharmacotherapy. Patisiran significantly improved polyneuropathy and quality of life (QoL) in the phase III APOLLO trial. In the absence of direct comparisons, this analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of tafamidis and patisiran in hATTR amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Research design and methods: Randomized controlled trial evidence for tafamidis was identified by systematic literature review. Indirect treatment comparisons were performed using the standard pairwise Bucher method for endpoints used in both APOLLO and the tafamidis Fx-005 trial: change from baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score-lower limbs (NIS-LL), Norfolk QoL-Diabetic Neuropathy questionnaire (QoL-DN), NIS-LL response, and mBMI vs. placebo. Inter-trial population differences were assessed by sensitivity analysis. Results: The base-case analysis (FAP Stage 1 APOLLO patients vs. intent-to-treat Fx-005 population) suggested patisiran had a greater treatment effect vs. tafamidis for all endpoints, with significant improvements in mean change in NIS-LL (-5.49) and QoL-DN (-13.10) from baseline to Month 18. Similar trends were observed in all sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In the absence of direct comparisons, this analysis suggests patisiran has a greater treatment effect than tafamidis in patients with hATTR amyloidosis with polyneuropathy.

Objective Identify the most recent utility value estimates for cardiovascular disease (CVD) via systematic literature review (SLR) and explore trends in utility elicitation methods in the last 6 years. Methods This SLR was updated on January 25, 2018, and identified studies reporting utilities for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, angina, peripheral artery disease (PAD), and any-cause revascularization by searching Embase, PubMed, Health Technology Assessment Database, and grey literature. Results A total of 375 studies reported CVD utilities (pre-2013 vs post-2013: MI, 38 vs 32; stroke, 86 vs 113; stable angina, 8 vs 9; undefined/unstable angina, 23 vs 8; PAD, 29 vs 13; revascularization, 54 vs 40). Median average utilities for MI, stroke, and revascularization increased over time (pre-2013 vs post-2013: MI, 0.71 vs 0.79; stroke, 0.63 vs 0.64; revascularization, 0.76 vs 0.81); angina and PAD showed a decrease in median values over time (stable angina, 0.83 vs 0.72; undefined/unstable angina, 0.70 vs 0.69; PAD, 0.76 vs 0.71). The proportion of utility estimates from trials increased across health states (pre-2013 vs post-2013: 22.5% vs 37.2%), as did the proportion of trials using the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; pre-2013 vs post-2013: 73.8% vs 91.4%). Use of methods such as the standard gamble, time trade-off, and Health Utilities Index has declined. Conclusions Health state utilities for cardiovascular health states have changed in the last 6 years, likely due to changes in the types of studies conducted, the patient populations evaluated, and possibly changing utility elicitation methods. The EQ-5D has been used more frequently.

To identify risk equations for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in primary and secondary prevention settings that are used or recommended by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations and in clinical guidelines (CGs). Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted using a two-stage search strategy. First, HTA reviews of manufacturers' drug submissions, reports from established HTA organizations (Europe, Canada, and Australia), and CGs from countries with and without HTA organizations, including the United States, were identified. Documents published between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2016, were examined for cardiovascular risk equations, recommendations, and commentaries. Next, publications associated with risk equations and cited by HTA and CG documents were retrieved. This literature was examined to extract commentaries and risk equation study characteristics. Results: The review identified 47 risk equations, 25 in the primary CVD prevention setting (i.e., patients with no CVD history), including 5 for CVD prevention in diabetes and 22 solely in secondary prevention settings; 11 were identified for heart failure, 3 for stroke or transient ischemic attack, 2 for stable angina, and 11 for acute coronary syndrome or related conditions. A small set of primary prevention equations was found to be commonly used by HTAs, whereas secondary prevention equations were less common in HTA documents. CGs provided more risk equations as options than HTA documents. Conclusions: Although there is an abundance of risk equations developed for primary and secondary prevention, there remains a need for additional research to provide sufficient clinical and HTA guidance for risk estimation, particularly in high-risk or secondary prevention settings.