Kabirraaj Toor

Comparative efficacy of golimumab, infliximab, and adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis accounting for differences in trial designs

Aim: To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the comparative efficacy of infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Design: A systematic literature search identified five randomized controlled trials for inclusion in the NMA. One trial assessed golimumab, two assessed infliximab and two assessed adalimumab. Outcomes included clinical response, clinical remission, mucosal healing, sustained clinical response and sustained clinical remission. Innovative methods were used to allow inclusion of the golimumab trial data given the alternative design of this trial (i.e., two-stage re-randomization). Results: After induction, no statistically significant differences were found between golimumab and adalimumab or between golimumab and infliximab. Infliximab was statistically superior to adalimumab after induction for all outcomes and treatment ranking suggested infliximab as the superior treatment for induction. Golimumab and infliximab were associated with similar efficacy for achieving maintained clinical remission and sustained clinical remission, whereas adalimumab was not significantly better than placebo for sustained clinical remission. Golimumab and infliximab were also associated with similar efficacy for achieving maintained clinical response, sustained clinical response and mucosal healing. Finally, golimumab 50 and 100 mg was statistically superior to adalimumab for clinical response and sustained clinical response, and golimumab 100 mg was also statistically superior to adalimumab for mucosal healing. Conclusion: The results of our NMA suggest that infliximab was statistically superior to adalimumab after induction, and that golimumab was statistically superior to adalimumab for sustained outcomes. Golimumab and infliximab appeared comparable in efficacy.

Cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas compared with other antihyperglycaemic drugs: A Bayesian meta‐analysis of survival data

To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the risk of cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas (SUs) vs other glucose lowering drugs in patients with T2DM (T2DM).

Network meta-analysis of direct-acting antivirals in combination with peginterferon-ribavirin for previously untreated patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 infection

AIM To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the comparative efficacy, as measured by sustained virological response (SVR), between boceprevir (BOC), telaprevir (TEL), faldaprevir (FAL), simeprevir (SIM) and sofosbuvir (SOF) in combination with peginterferon-ribavirin (PR) against a control of PR. DESIGN A literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adult patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 who were naive to any prior therapy. RCTs assessing standard duration therapy (SDT) or response-guided therapy (RGT) BOC, TEL, FAL, SIM or SOF in combination with PR against a control of PR were eligible for inclusion. All RCTs must have provided SVR at either 12 or 24 weeks post-therapy cessation. RESULTS We included nine RCTs. All direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) were found to perform better than PR. Additionally, SDT FAL was found to be better than the 240 mg RGT FAL regimen with the PR lead-in. A sensitivity analysis excluding RCTs with only SVR at 12 weeks was consistent with the results of the primary analysis. A sensitivity analysis removing an RCT assessing SIM that reported SVR of >60% in the PR control group additionally found that RGT SIM was superior to the 240 mg RGT FAL regimen with the PR lead-in. DISCUSSION Our analyses indicate that SDT and RGT regimens of DAAs plus PR do not differ greatly in terms of SVR among treatment-naive hepatitis C genotype 1 patients. More advanced Bayesian network meta-analyses are likely needed to incorporate a comprehensive evidence base, expanding beyond randomized clinical trials.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of treatments for patients with untreated multiple myeloma not eligible for stem cell transplantation.

Abstract In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), patients ineligible for front-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), melphalan and prednisone (MP) with thalidomide (MPT) or bortezomib (VMP) are standard first-line therapeutic options. Despite new treatment regimens incorporating bortezomib or lenalidomide, MM remains incurable. The FIRST study demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) until progression vs. MPT in transplant-ineligible ndMM patients. However, to date no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared Rd or MPT versus VMP. We conducted a network meta-analysis using RCTs identified through a systematic literature review to evaluate the relative efficacy of Rd versus other regimens on survival endpoints in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for ASCT. In this analysis, Rd was associated with a significant PFS and survival advantage versus other first-line treatments (VMP, MPT, MP), challenging the role of alkylators in this setting.

Comparative tolerability of treatments for acute migraine: A network meta-analysis

Introduction Migraine headache is a neurological disorder whose attacks are associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia. Treatments for migraine aim to either prevent attacks before they have started or relieve attacks (abort) after onset of symptoms and range from complementary therapies to pharmacological interventions. A number of treatment-related adverse events such as somnolence, fatigue, and chest discomfort have previously been reported in association with triptans. The comparative tolerability of available agents for the abortive treatment of migraine attacks has not yet been systematically reviewed and quantified. Methods We performed a systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative tolerability of treatments for migraine. The literature search targeted all randomized controlled trials evaluating oral abortive treatments for acute migraine over a range of available doses in adults. The primary outcomes of interest were any adverse event, treatment-related adverse events, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were fatigue, dizziness, chest discomfort, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting. Results Our search yielded 141 trials covering 15 distinct treatments. Of the triptans, sumatriptan, eletriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, and the combination treatment of sumatriptan and naproxen were associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring compared with placebo. Of the non-triptans, only acetaminophen was associated with a statistically significant increase in odds of an adverse event occurring when compared with placebo. Overall, triptans were not associated with increased odds of serious adverse events occurring and the same was the case for non-triptans. For the secondary outcomes, with the exception of vomiting, all triptans except for almotriptan and frovatriptan were significantly associated with increased risk for all outcomes. Almotriptan was significantly associated with an increased risk of vomiting, whereas all other triptans yielded non-significant lower odds compared with placebo. Generally, the non-triptans were not associated with decreased tolerability for the secondary outcomes. Discussion In summary, triptans were associated with higher odds of any adverse event or a treatment-related adverse event occurring when compared to placebo and non-triptans. Non-significant results for non-triptans indicate that these treatments are comparable with one another and placebo regarding tolerability outcomes.

Cost per remission and cost per response with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis

Abstract Objective: To determine the short-term costs per sustained remission and sustained response of three tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) in comparison to conventional therapy for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis. Methods: A probabilistic Markov model was developed. This included an 8-week induction period, and 22 subsequent 2-week cycles (up to 1 year). The model included three disease states: remission, response, and relapse. Costs were from a Canadian public payer perspective. Estimates for the additional cost per 1 year of sustained remission and sustained response were obtained. Results: Golimumab 100 mg provided the lowest cost per additional remission (

Incorporating alternative design clinical trials in network meta-analyses.

935) and cost per additional response (

Why Clinicians are Not Relying on Evidence from Indirect Comparison Studies Evaluating Comparative Efficacy of Interventions for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Critical Review

701) compared with conventional therapy. Golimumab 50 mg yielded slightly higher costs than golimumab 100 mg. Infliximab was associated with the largest additional number of estimated remissions and responses, but also higher cost at

Years of life lost to incarceration: inequities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians

1975 per remission and

Prolactin-related adverse events and change in prolactin levels in pediatric patients given antipsychotics for schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A systematic review

1311 per response. Adalimumab was associated with the largest cost per remission (