Ying Jiao Zhao

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Topical Prostaglandin Analogues for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension

Objective: To systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of 4 prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) as first-line monotherapies for intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering in adult patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Data Sources: A literature search was performed in PubMed (1965-June 2013) and the Cochrane Library (1980-June 2013) using the search terms ocular hypertension, open-angle glaucoma, prostaglandin analogues, bimatoprost, latanoprost, tafluprost, and travoprost. Additional studies were searched from the reference lists of identified publications. Study Selection and Data Extraction: In all, 32 randomized controlled trials comparing between PGAs (bimatoprost 0.03%, latanoprost 0.005%, tafluprost 0.0015%, and travoprost 0.004%) or PGA with timolol were selected. Data Synthesis: A network meta-analysis was conducted. Using timolol as reference, the relative risks (RRs) of achieving treatment success, defined as the proportion of patients achieving at least 30% IOP reduction, with 95% CIs, were as follows: bimatoprost, 1.59 (1.28-1.98); latanoprost, 1.32 (1.00-1.74); travoprost, 1.33 (1.03-1.72); and tafluprost, 1.10 (0.85-1.42). The mean IOP reductions after 1 month were 1.98 (1.50-2.47), 1.01 (0.55-1.46), 1.08 (0.59-1.57), and 0.46 (−0.41 to 1.33) mm Hg, respectively, and the results were sustained at 3 months. Bimatoprost was associated with the highest risk of developing hyperemia, whereas latanoprost had the lowest risk, with RRs (95% CI) of 4.66 (3.49-6.23) and 2.30 (1.76-3.00), respectively. Conclusions: Bimatoprost achieved the highest efficacy in terms of IOP reduction, whereas latanoprost had the most favorable tolerability profile. This review serves to guide selection of the optimal PGA agent for individual patient care in clinical practice.

Network Meta-analysis and Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Fluconazole, Itraconazole, Posaconazole, and Voriconazole in Invasive Fungal Infection Prophylaxis

ABSTRACT Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are associated with high mortality rates and large economic burdens. Triazole prophylaxis is used for at-risk patients with hematological malignancies or stem cell transplants. We evaluated both the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of triazole prophylaxis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fluconazole, itraconazole capsule and solution, posaconazole, and voriconazole was conducted. The outcomes of interest included the incidences of IFIs and deaths. This was coupled with a cost-effectiveness analysis from patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Probabilities of transitions between health states were derived from the NMA. Resource use and costs were obtained from the Singapore health care institution. Data on 5,505 participants in 21 RCTs were included. Other than itraconazole capsule, all triazole antifungals were effective in reducing IFIs. Posaconazole was better than fluconazole (odds ratio [OR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.73]) and itraconazole capsule (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.97]), but not voriconazole (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.43 to 4.01]), in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole significantly reduced all-cause deaths, compared to placebo, fluconazole, and itraconazole solution (OR, 0.49 to 0.54 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for itraconazole solution was lower than that for posaconazole (Singapore dollars [SGD] 12,546 versus SGD 26,817 per IFI avoided and SGD 5,844 versus SGD 12,423 per LY saved) for transplant patients. For leukemia patients, itraconazole solution was the dominant strategy. Voriconazole was dominated by posaconazole. All triazole antifungals except itraconazole capsule were effective in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole was more efficacious in reducing IFIs and all-cause deaths than were fluconazole and itraconazole. Both itraconazole solution and posaconazole were cost-effective in the Singapore health care setting.

Long-term antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background For treatment of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, comparative long-term effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs to reduce relapses when minimising adverse effects is of clinical interest, hence prompting this review. Aims To evaluate the comparative long-term effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs. Method We systematically searched electronic databases for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antipsychotic monotherapy aimed at reducing relapse risks in schizophrenia. We conducted network meta-analysis of 18 antipsychotics and placebo. Results Studies of 10 177 patients in 56 reports were included; treatment duration averaged 48 weeks (range 4–156). Olanzapine was significantly more effective than chlorpromazine (odds ratio (OR) 0.35, 95% CI 0.14–0.88) or haloperidol (OR=0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.82); and fluphenazine decanoate was more effective than chlorpromazine (OR=0.31, 95% CI 0.11–0.88) in relapse reduction. Fluphenazine decanoate, haloperidol, haloperidol decanoate and trifluoperazine produced more extrapyramidal adverse effects than olanzapine or quetiapine; and olanzapine was associated with more weight gain than other agents. Conclusions Except for apparent superiority of olanzapine and fluphenazine decanoate over chlorpromazine, most agents showed intermediate efficacy for relapse prevention and differences among them were minor. Typical antipsychotics yielded adverse neurological effects, and olanzapine was associated with weight gain. The findings may contribute to evidence-based treatment selection for patients with chronic psychotic disorders. Declaration of interest R.J.B. received grants from the Bruce J. Anderson Foundation and the McLean Private Donors Psychopharmacology Research Fund. Copyright and usage

Cost-effectiveness of strategy-based approach to treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C

The high cost of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) direct‐acting antivirals (DAAs) poses significant financial challenges for health payers, especially in Asia. A personalized treatment strategy based on individualized probability of virological response using oral DAAs as second‐line therapy would seem practical but has not been studied.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ticagrelor and Prasugrel for the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND In the management of Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the comparative cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and prasugrel, referenced to generic clopidogrel, is unknown. OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and prasugrel as compared with generic clopidogrel in patients with ACS in Singapore. METHODS A Markov model simulating a typical cohort of 62-year-old patients with ACS was constructed from a patients perspective over a lifetime horizon. Treatment effects and adverse events, including nonfatal myocardial infarction, major bleeding related to non-coronary artery bypass grafting, dyspnea, or death, were estimated from pivotal trials comparing clopidogrel with ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Costs were estimated from a tertiary hospital with more than 1500 admissions for ACS per year. RESULTS The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per life-year gained for ticagrelor was about three times more favorable than for prasugrel (Singapore dollar [SGD] 13,276 vs. SGD 38,809). The ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for prasugrel and ticagrelor, however, was comparable at SGD 18,921 and SGD 18,647, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER per QALY gained for prasugrel and ticagrelor was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of all-cause mortality and utility for dyspnea, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that compared with clopidogrel, the probabilities of prasugrel and ticagrelor being cost-effective are 87.1% and 88.3% based on the willingness-to-pay value of SGD 65,000 (one time the gross domestic product per capita in Singapore). CONCLUSIONS Ticagrelor is more cost-effective than prasugrel in reducing all-cause mortality in patients with ACS. The cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and prasugrel become similar, however, when accounting for the impact of dyspnea on QALY.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of novel oral anticoagulants incorporating real-world elderly patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) expand the treatment options for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Their benefits need to be weighed against the risk-benefit ratio in real-world elderly patients, prompting this cost-effectiveness study of NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban), warfarin and aspirin for stroke prevention in AF. METHODS Applying effectiveness estimates from a network meta-analysis involving over 800,000 patients from randomised controlled trials and observation studies, our Markov model projected cost and health outcomes for a cohort of 65-year-old AF patients over a life-time. We performed subgroup analysis stratified by age (65-74 and ≥75years), with further analysis limited to observational studies involving dabigatran and rivaroxaban. RESULTS Compared to warfarin, NOACs (except dabigatran 110) were associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from USD 24,476 to USD 41,448 that were within cost-effectiveness threshold of USD 49,700 (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). Aspirin regimens were dominated. In elderly aged ≥75years, cost effectiveness of NOACs (except apixaban) decreased, owing to worsened performance in safety profile. Analysis limited to observational studies revealed that dabigatran 150 and rivaroxaban were not cost-effective, reflecting increased bleeding risks in non-controlled settings. Threshold analyses revealed that apixaban was no longer cost-effective at two to three times higher bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS Whilst NOACs are cost-effective in the younger elderly compared to warfarin, their benefits appear to be offset by worsened risk profile in older elderly, especially in non-controlled settings. Decisions on appropriate AF treatment should balance treatment-related benefits, risks, and patient preference.

Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Compared to Electroconvulsive Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Singapore: COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ECT VS. RTMS IN DEPRESSION

Compared to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the cost‐effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the management of treatment‐resistant depression (TRD) remains unclear.

Evaluation of a risk-guided strategy for empirical carbapenem use in febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is associated with substantial morbidity and necessitates empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment. In this prospective cohort study, a risk-guided management strategy for FN using empirical piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP) or a carbapenem was evaluated. The analysis involved 723 FN episodes in hospitalised adult patients, including those with severe sepsis or prior infection/colonisation with extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust for baseline differences between treatment groups and produced 267 matched pairs. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were the incidences of drug-resistant Gram-negative (including ESBL-producing) and Gram-positive bacterial isolates and of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) and their associated mortality. There was no difference in mortality between empirical carbapenem and TZP [18/267 (6.7%) vs. 14/267 (5.2%); P = 0.466]. Higher incidences of drug-resistant Gram-negative isolates [77/267 (28.8%) vs. 26/267 (9.7%); P < 0.001], including ESBL-producing bacteria [57/267 (21.3%) vs. 16/267 (6.0%); P < 0.001], were observed in carbapenem-treated episodes where its use lowered mortality. Mortality rates for ESBL-positive infections were 5.3% (3/57) and 25.0% (4/16) (P = 0.037) and for drug-resistant Gram-negative infections were 6.5% (5/77) and 23.1% (6/26) (P = 0.018) in carbapenem- and TZP-treated episodes, respectively. More IPA was observed with carbapenem use [16/267 (6.0%) vs. 6/267 (2.2%); P = 0.029]. Antifungal prophylaxis reduced the risk of death (odds ratio = 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.87; P = 0.017). Risk-guided carbapenem prescribing in FN correctly identified cases prone to drug-resistant Gram-negative infections and reduced the mortality in these episodes.

Dabigatran Compared With Rivaroxaban vs Warfarin

In Reply We appreciate the interest of Fraser and colleagues in our recent Research Letter.1 They highlight several key limitations we could not address given the tight word count constraints. Knowledge is built 1 step at a time, and we agree that the natural next step would be to compare performance using real-world cases across a broad range of clinical conditions. We hope to pursue work in that direction in the future. We also appreciate their comment regarding the combined diagnostic performance of physicians and their Heart Disease Program (HDP). In our study,1 we compared the performance of symptom checkers vs physicians because tens of millions of patients are using symptom checkers every year, and many are likely doing so instead of seeing their physician. However their prior HDP study highlights the potential for symptom checkers to be an adjunct to physician diagnostic ability. Another important research question moving forward is to compare the diagnostic performance of physicians with symptom checker vs physicians alone. There are a number of studies that have studied the performance of physicianfocused computer diagnosis programs, such as the HDP. We do disagree with the idea that we should have only focused on the symptom checkers with the best diagnostic performance. Our goal was to conduct an apples-to-apples comparison of the average physician vs average symptom checker. If we limited the comparison to the top symptom checkers then we should also limit the physicians we study to those with the best diagnostic accuracy. While we could debate the relative fraction of rare vs common conditions in any test of diagnostic performance, we do think it is critical to test both. A symptom checker that only performs well for common conditions is not useful in the real world. Also, the feedback we have received from physicians is that one of their key concerns with symptom checkers is that they will not identify rare diagnoses.