Vinicius Lins Ferreira

Safety of interferon-free therapies for chronic hepatitis C: a network meta-analysis

Interferon‐free (IFN‐free) therapies for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have been developed to provide more effective, tolerable and safer therapeutic strategies. To date, no network meta‐analysis (NMA) evaluating the safety profile of these regimens has been performed. This systematic review and NMA aimed to evaluate safety outcomes of IFN‐free treatment options for chronic hepatitis C.

Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotype 1: a pairwise meta-analysis

Ledipasvir with sofosbuvir (LED/SOF) for the treatment of patients infected with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus can be used with or without ribavirin (RBV). RBV is well known to promote significant adverse events (AE). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with LED/SOF, with or without RBV, in patients infected with hepatitis C virus genotype 1.

A network meta-analysis of primary prophylaxis for invasive fungal infection in haematological patients

Antifungal prophylaxis is an option to reduce the incidence of invasive fungal infection (IFI) in haematological patients. To date, no network meta‐analysis (NMA) of high‐quality evidence (double‐blind randomized controlled trials) has been performed on this subject. This systematic review and NMA aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different antifungal agents used for prophylaxis of IFI in patients with haematological disorders.

Medical Treatments for Acromegaly: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND Acromegaly results from the hypersecretion of growth hormone. Because of the low incidence rates of this disease worldwide, few clinical trials evaluating drug treatments have been conducted. OBJECTIVES To conduct the first network meta-analysis simultaneously comparing all available drugs used in acromegaly treatment so as to provide more robust evidence in this field. METHODS A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane Collaboration recommendations (PROSPERO database under the registration number CRD42017059880). The electronic searches were conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing any drug for the treatment of acromegaly head-to-head or versus placebo were included. Outcomes concerning the efficacy and safety of treatments were evaluated. The statistical analyses were performed using Aggregate Data Drug Information System version 1.16.8 (drugis.org, Groningen, The Netherlands). RESULTS The initial search retrieved 2059 articles. Of these, 10 randomized controlled trials were included in a qualitative analysis and 7 in a quantitative analysis. The network meta-analysis for the efficacy outcome (number of patients achieving insulinlike growth factor 1 control) showed that pegvisomant and lanreotide autogel were statistically superior to placebo (odds ratio [95% credible interval] 0.06 [0.00-0.55] and 0.09 [0.01-0.88]). No further differences were found. The probability rank indicated that pegvisomant and pasireotide have the highest probabilities (33% and 34%, respectively) of being the best therapeutic options. No major side effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS Pegvisomant is still a good option for acromegaly treatment, but pasireotide seems to be a promising alternative. Nevertheless, other important key factors such as drug costs and effectiveness (real-world results) should be taken into account when selecting acromegaly treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of acromegaly treatments: a systematic review

PurposeAcromegaly is a rare disease that results in the enlargement of body extremities and in organomegaly. Treatments include surgery, drugs, and radiotherapy, which are all onerous. Therefore, well-conducted cost-analyses are crucial in the decision-making process.MethodsA systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly therapies was performed following PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations. The search for records was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (May 2018). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joana Briggs Institute Tool.ResultsFrom initial 547 records, 16 studies were included in the review. The studies could present more than one economic evaluation, and encompassed cost-effectiveness (n = 13), cost-utility (n = 5), and cost-consequence (n = 1) analyses. All studies were model-based and evaluated only direct medical costs. Eleven records did not mention discounting and only 10 performed sensitivity analyses. The characteristic of the studies, the cost-effectiveness results and the studies’ conclusions are described and commented upon. The main limitation of the studies was discussed and aspects to improve in future studies were pointed out.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly have been performed in several scenarios, evaluating different phases of treatment. However, the studies present limitations and, overall, were considered of moderate quality. Further economic models should be developed following health economics guidelines recommendations, and must improve transparency.

Cost-effectiveness of amphotericin B formulations in the treatment of systemic fungal infections

Amphotericin formulations, indicated for invasive fungal infections (IFIs), vary in effectiveness, safety and costs. In Brazil, only the conventional formulation is provided by the Public Health System. The aim of this study was to perform a cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing conventional amphotericin B (CAB), liposomal amphotericin B (LAB) and amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC). Therefore, a decision tree was developed. The model began with high‐risking patients on suspicion or confirmation of IFI. The analysis was conducted under the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System. Model health states were defined according to medication use and clinical evolution. Clinical efficacy (cure) and transition probabilities were derived from the literature. Resource use was estimated from Brazilian data. Time horizon followed the maximum treatment time determined in the patient information leaflets (3 or 6 weeks). One‐way and probabilistic‐sensitivity analyses were conducted. The conventional formulation was the most cost‐effective. No dominance was observed; however, high incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were obtained for LAB (USD 313 130) and ABLC (USD 1 711 280). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. CAB is the most cost‐effective treatment, followed by LAB and ABLC. Although CAB presents critical safety aspects, the high acquisition costs of the other formulations prevent their large‐scale use in Brazil.

Discontinuation of non-anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in interventional versus observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeAlthough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for the assessment of clinical outcomes, long-term extension trials (LTEs) and observational cohorts may help generate evidence. Our goal was to compare the discontinuation rates of abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) reported in different study designs.MethodsA systematic review was conducted with searches in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, plus a manual search, for RCTs, LTEs, and observational cohorts reporting discontinuation rates by any of three causes (all-cause, inefficacy, adverse events). Meta-analyses with sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.ResultsOf the 111 studies included, 74 were RCTs (n = 55) or LTEs (n = 17) reporting data on abatacept (n = 33), rituximab (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 31) and 37 were observational cohort studies (abatacept = 11, rituximab = 8, tocilizumab = 18). The follow-up duration did not differ among the study designs. Discontinuation rates were similar among the drugs but varied among the study designs. Discontinuation rates were significantly higher in cohort studies than those in interventional studies for the three drugs. Sensitivity analyses could not identify patient characteristics associated with these differences. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated no correlation between study follow-up duration and discontinuation rates.ConclusionsThe discontinuation rates reported for non-anti-TNF drugs varied relative to the study design in which they were investigated. Regulatory agencies, price-setting entities, and evidence-gathering researchers should consider the effect of the real-life environment in their decisions and conclusions.

Effectiveness and safety of pegvisomant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational longitudinal studies

PurposeAcromegaly is a rare disease that often requires drug treatment to achieve control, with pegvisomant being one of the most widely used therapies. In the present paper, we aimed to obtain evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of pegvisomant by reviewing real-world observational longitudinal studies.MethodsA systematic review was performed with a meta-analysis of event rates (95% confidence interval (CI)) using a random effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed (comprehensive meta-analysis 2.0). The systematic review was performed in accordance to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology, and Cochrane recommendations (PROSPERO register CRD 42017059880). PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO were used to search for literature. Observational studies in patients using pegvisomant for the treatment of acromegaly were included.ResultsInitially, 552 papers were retrieved from the databases; and 31 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and 14 in the quantitative analysis. Eight primary meta-analyses were performed. The overall rate of patients with disease control was of 60.9% (51.8–69.3%; 95% CI). When considering patients under monotherapy, the control rate was 71.7% (64.0–78.4%; 95% CI). Tumor growth was estimated in 7.3% (4.7–11.1%; 95% CI) and elevation of transaminases in 3.0% (1.7–5.2%; 95% CI).ConclusionsThe real-world data showed that the effectiveness of pegvisomant is not as high as reported in interventional studies. Acromegaly appears to be better controlled when pegvisomant is used as a monotherapy. No serious adverse events were associated with the use of pegvisomant; however, given the high cost of this drug, further studies are required.

Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Network Meta-Analysis

BackgroundA broad range of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is available. However, the efficacy and safety of traditional DMTs compared with the recently developed DMTs remain unclear.ObjectiveTherefore, we have synthesised available evidence of clinical outcomes for DMTs in adults with RRMS.MethodsPubMed, Scopus and a manual search were performed. Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials assessing DMTs as monotherapies were conducted. SUCRA and GRADE were used to rank therapies and to assess quality of general evidence, respectively.ResultsThirty-three studies were included in the meta-analyses. The most effective therapies for the outcome of annualised relapse rate were alemtuzumab (96% probability), natalizumab (96%) and ocrelizumab (85%), compared with all other therapies (hazard ratio versus placebo, 0.31, 0.31 and 0.37, respectively; p < 0.05 for all comparisons) (high-quality evidence). However, no significant differences among these three therapies were found. Discontinuation due to adverse events revealed similarity across all therapies, except for alemtuzumab, which showed less discontinuation when compared with interferon-1a intramuscular (relative risk 0.37; p < 0.05).ConclusionHigh-quality evidence shows that alemtuzumab, natalizumab and ocrelizumab present the highest efficacy among DMTs, and other meta-analyses are required regarding adverse events frequency, to better understand the safety of therapies. Based on efficacy profile, guidelines should consider a three-category classification (i.e. high, intermediate and low efficacy).

Effectiveness and tolerability of direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C patients in a Southern state of Brazil

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness in terms of sustained virological response and tolerability of available second generation direct-acting antivirals in Brazilian patients. METHODS This was a retrospective observational study conducted in six centers in Southern Brazil. The sample comprised adult patients who were chronically infected with hepatitis C virus, regardless of virus genotype, fibrosis stage, or prior treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness among the treatments, and also to uncover the factors influencing the achievement of sustained virological response. RESULTS A total of 296 patients were included in the study, with the majority receiving sofosbuvir with daclatasvir (59%) or sofosbuvir with simeprevir (26%). Overall sustained virological response rates were approximately 91.6%. For genotype 1, sofosbuvir with daclatasvir had an sustained virological response rate of approximately 95%, while the sustained virological response rate of sofosbuvir with simeprevir was 92%; this difference was statistically significant only for subtype 1b. The only treatment used for genotype 3 patients was sofosbuvir with daclatasvir, and lower rates of sustained virological response were observed for this group, compared to genotype 1 (84% versus 95%, p<0.05). Apart from this difference between genotypes, and a difference between patients who achieved rapid virologic response compared with those who did not, there were no other statistically significant factors associated with sustained virological response. CONCLUSIONS The results point to the effectiveness of second-generation direct-acting antivirals in hepatitis C virus Brazilian patients, especially those with genotype 1. Furthermore, that patients with genotype 3 need more attention and adjustments in available treatment options.