BackgroundAnticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and prevention. Although novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) have been compared with SOC in this indication, no head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared NOACs. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs for the initial and long-term treatment of VTE.MethodsElectronic databases (accessed July 2014) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus SOC. Eligible patients included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as relative risks (RR) and 95% credible intervals (Crl).ResultsSix Phase III RCTs met criteria for inclusion: apixaban (one RCT; n = 5,395); rivaroxaban (two RCTs; n = 3,423/4,832); dabigatran (two RCTs; n = 2,539/2,568); edoxaban (one RCT; n = 8,240). There were no statistically significant differences between the NOACs with regard to the risk of ‘VTE and VTE-related death. Apixaban treatment was associated with the most favourable safety profile of the NOACs, showing a statistically significantly reduced risk of ‘major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleed’ compared with rivaroxaban (0.47 [0.36, 0.61]), dabigatran (0.69 [0.51, 0.94]), and edoxaban (0.54 [0.41, 0.69]). Dabigatran was also associated with a significantly lower risk of ‘major or CRNM bleed’ compared with rivaroxaban (0.68 [0.53, 0.87]) and edoxaban (0.77 [0.60, 0.99]).ConclusionsIndirect comparisons showed statistically similar reductions in the risk of ‘VTE or VTE-related death for all NOACs. In contrast, reductions in ‘major or CRNM bleed’ for initial/long-term treatment were significantly better with apixaban compared with all other NOACs, and with dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Results from the current analysis indicate that the NOACs offer clinical benefit over conventional therapy while highlighting relative differences in their bleeding profile.

No abstract

IntroductionThe introduction of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) has improved the outlook for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR+ mutations. However, most patients develop resistance, with the result that median progression-free survival (PFS) iŝ12 months. Combining EGFR-TKIs with other agents, such as bevacizumab, is a promising approach to prolonging remission. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to assess available evidence regarding the benefits of first-line combination therapy involving EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsLiterature searches were performed using relevant search terms. Study-level pseudo-individual patient-level data (IPD) were recreated from digitized Kaplan–Meier curve data, using a published algorithm. Study IPD were analyzed using both the proportional hazards and the acceleration failure time (AFT) survival models, and it was concluded that the AFT model was most appropriate. An NMA was performed based on acceleration factors (AFs) using a Bayesian framework to compare EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy.ResultsNine randomized controlled trials were identified that provided data for EGFR-TKI therapy in patients with EGFR+ tumors. These included studies of afatinib (n=3), erlotinib (n=3), erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n=1) and gefitinib (n=2). Erlotinib plus bevacizumab produced the greatest increase in PFS compared with chemotherapy, with 1/AF being 0.24 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17, 0.34). This combination also produced greater increases in PFS compared with EGFR-TKI monotherapy: 1/AF versus afatinib, 0.51 (95% CrI 0.35, 0.73); versus erlotinib, 0.53 (95% CrI 0.39, 0.72) and versus gefitinib, 0.46 (95% CrI 0.32, 0.66). All three EGFR-TKI monotherapies prolonged PFS compared with chemotherapy; estimates of treatment effect ranged from 1/AF 0.53 (95% CrI 0.48, 0.60) for gefitinib to 1/AF 0.46 (95% CrI 0.40, 0.53) for erlotinib. There was no evidence for differences between EGFR-TKI monotherapies, as all 95% CrIs included the null value.ConclusionAlthough data for erlotinib plus bevacizumab came from a single Phase 2 study, the results of the NMA suggest that adding bevacizumab to erlotinib may be a promising approach to improving the outcomes achieved with EGFR-TKI monotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR+ NSCLC.

BackgroundHistorically, warfarin or aspirin have been the recommended therapeutic options for the extended treatment (>3 months) of VTE. Data from Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are now available for non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in this indication. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for the extended treatment of VTE.MethodsElectronic databases (accessed July 2014 and updated April 2016) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for the extended treatment of VTE. Eligible studies included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted, and results were presented as relative risks (RRs). Sensitivity analyses examining (i) the dataset employed according to the time frame for outcome assessment (ii) the model used for the NMA were conducted.ResultsEleven Phase III RCTs (examining apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, warfarin and placebo) were included. The risk of the composite efficacy outcome (VTE and VTE-related death) was statistically significantly lower with the NOACs and warfarin INR 2.0–3.0 compared with aspirin, with no significant differences between the NOACs. Treatment with apixaban (RR 0.23, 95% CrI 0.10, 0.55) or dabigatran (RR 0.55, 95% Crl 0.43, 0.71) was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of ‘major or clinically relevant non-major bleed’ compared with warfarin INR 2.0–3.0. Apixaban also showed a significantly reduced risk compared with dabigatran (RR 0.42, 95% Crl 0.18, 0.97) and rivaroxaban (RR 0.23, 95% Crl 0.09, 0.59). Sensitivity analyses indicate that results were dependent on the dataset, but not on the type of NMA model employed.ConclusionsResults from the NMA indicate that NOACs are an effective treatment for prevention of VTE or VTE-related death) in the extended treatment setting. However, bleeding risk differs between potential treatments, with apixaban reporting the most favourable profile compared with other NOACs, warfarin INR 2.0–3.0, and aspirin.

ObjectivesThe current systematic review (SR) was undertaken to summarise the published literature reporting the clinical and economic value of automation for chemotherapy preparation management to include compounding workflow software and robotic compounding systems.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 16 November 2017 to identify publications investigating chemotherapy compounding workflow software solutions used in a hospital pharmacy for the preparation of chemotherapy.Results5175 publications were screened by title and abstract and 18 of 72 full publications screened were included. Grey literature searching identified an additional seven publications. The SR identified 25 publications relating to commercial technologies for compounding (Robotic compounding systems: APOTECAchemo (n=12), CytoCare (n=5) and RIVA (n=1); Workflow software: Cato (n=6) and Diana (n=1)). The studies demonstrate that compounding technologies improved accuracy in dose preparations and reduced dose errors compared with manual compounding. Comparable levels of contamination were reported for technologies compared with manual compounding. The compounding technologies were associated with reductions in annual costs compared with manual compounding, but the impact on compounding times was not consistent and was dependent on the type of compounding technology.ConclusionsThe published evidence suggests that the implementation of chemotherapy compounding automation solutions may reduce compounding errors and reduce costs; however, this is highly variable depending on the form of automation. In addition, the available evidence is heterogeneous, sparse and inconsistently reported. A key finding from the current SR is a ‘call to action’ to encourage pharmacists to publish data following implementation of chemotherapy compounding technologies in their hospital, which would allow for evidence-based recommendations on the benefits of chemotherapy compounding technologies.