Dataset Information

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Demonstrate how benefit-risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference.

Study design and setting

This study used a multimethod benefit-risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate-to-severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta-analysis of opioid dependence and a long-term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment.

Results

Lower-dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit-risk score (0.901), followed by higher-dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower-dose NGFi was the highest-ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit-risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.23 for NSAIDs).

Conclusion

The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit-risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences.

SUBMITTER: Mauer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9543715 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

Mauer Jonathan J Bullok Kristin K Watt Stephen S Whalen Ed E Russo Leo L Junor Rod R Markman John J Hauber Brett B Tervonen Tommi T

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20220408 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Demonstrate how benefit-risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>This study used a multimethod benefit-risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate-to-severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patien ...[more]

PMID: 35277997

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe long-term benefit-risk profiles of licensed and investigational treatments for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis have not been fully characterized.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of licensed and investigational treatments for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis were identified through a systematic literature review through 2 May 2021. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted to compare the efficacy (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] 75/90/100 [at least a 75/90/100% reduction in PASI score from baseline] response) and safety outcomes (any adverse event [AE], any serious AE [SAE], and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation) of each treatment evaluated between weeks 48 and 56 after baseline. Surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) were calculated to evaluate the relative ranking of treatments. The benefit-risk profiles of treatments were assessed by bidimensional plots of the NMA-estimated efficacy and safety outcomes.ResultsIn the efficacy NMA (N = 14 RCTs), the relative rankings for PASI 75/90/100 responses by weeks 48-56 were the highest for risankizumab (SUCRA: 98.5%) and bimekizumab (83.8% for dosing every 4 weeks [Q4W], 72.7% for dosing Q4W then every 8 weeks). The PASI response rates did not differ significantly between risankizumab and the two bimekizumab regimens. Additionally, risankizumab was associated with significantly higher PASI response rates than brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, and etanercept. In the safety NMAs (N = 8 RCTs), risankizumab had the highest relative rankings for all three outcomes (SUCRA: 92.1%, 82.0%, and 91.0% for any AE, any SAE, and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation, respectively). Risankizumab had a significantly lower rate of any AE than bimekizumab, ustekinumab, and secukinumab.ConclusionsRisankizumab was associated with the most favorable long-term benefit-risk profile for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Although ixekizumab and bimekizumab had favorable efficacy profiles, both treatments had lower rankings for safety outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveRandomized and open-label studies assessing prolotherapy for knee osteoarthritis have found quantitative improvement on the validated Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) compared with baseline status and control therapies. This study assessed the qualitative response of participants receiving prolotherapy, an injection-based complementary treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).DesignQualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews at 52 weeks after enrollment; transcribed responses were discussed by coauthors to identify themes; disagreement was resolved by consensus.SettingOutpatient.ParticipantsTwenty-two participants treated with prolotherapy for symptomatic knee OA who were exited from three randomized and open-label studies.InterventionsIntra- and extra-articular hypertonic dextrose injection (prolotherapy).Main outcome measuresPatient narrative and composite WOMAC questionnaire (0-100 points) scores.ResultsParticipants had baseline demographic and knee OA severity similar to those of participants in three prior intervention trials, as well as similar robust follow-up WOMAC score change (19.9 ± 12.6 points), suggesting a representative subsample. Seven themes were identified from participant narratives: (1) improvement in knee-specific quality of life (n = 18), (2) safety and comfort, (3) pretreatment counseling enhanced treatment adherence and optimism, (4) overall positive experience with prolotherapy, (5) limited response to prolotherapy (n = 4), (6) consistency with anecdotal clinical prolotherapy experience; and (7) functional improvement without pain reduction.ConclusionsMost participants reported substantially improved knee-specific effects, resulting in improved quality of life and activities of daily living; four participants reported minimal or no effect. Clear, complete description of procedural rationale may enhance optimism about and adherence to treatment appointments.

Project description:IntroductionUnderstanding the balance between the benefits and risks of vaccination is essential to ensure informed and adequate public health decision making. Quantitative benefit-risk models (qBRm) represent useful tools to help decision makers with supporting benefit-risk assessment throughout the lifecycle of a medical product. However, few initiatives have been launched to harmonise qBRm approaches, specifically for vaccines.ObjectivesThe aim of this paper was to identify publications about qBRm applied to vaccines through a systematic literature review, and to describe their characteristics.MethodsMedline, Scopus and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge databases were searched to identify articles in English, published from database inceptions up to December 2019. The search strategy included the combination of three key concepts: 'benefit-risk', 'modelling' and 'vaccines'. Data extracted included the modelling context and the methodological approaches used.ResultsOf 3172 publications screened, 48 original publications were included. Most of the selected studies were published over the past decade and focused on rotavirus (15), dengue (10) and influenza (6) vaccines. The majority (30) of studies reported analyses related to high-income countries. The methodology of the studies differed, particularly in modelling techniques, benefit-risk measures, and sensitivity analyses. The present work also pointed out a high level of variability in the quality of reporting across studies, with particular regard to input parameters and methodological approaches.ConclusionsThis review provides an extensive list of qBRm applied to vaccines. Discrepancies across studies were identified during our review. While the number of published qBRm studies is increasing, no reporting guidance for qBRm applied to vaccines is currently available. This may affect decision makers' confidence in the results and their benefit-risk assessment(s); therefore, the development of such reporting guidance is highly needed.

Project description:Treatments for alopecia areata (AA) have traditionally been prescribed off-label, and there has been no universal agreement on how to best manage the condition. Baricitinib is the first oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with severe AA. As a better understanding of the evidence supporting the management of AA in clinical practice is needed, we conducted a systematic literature review and subsequent narrative review to describe available evidence pertaining to the efficacy and tolerability of treatments currently recommended for adults with moderate-to-severe forms of AA. From 2557 identified records, a total of 53 records were retained for data extraction: 9 reported data from 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, and 44 reported data from unique RCTs with no placebo arm, non-randomized trials, or observational studies. Across drug classes, data were reported heterogeneously, with little consistency of data collection or clinical endpoints used. The most robust evidence was for the JAK inhibitor class, in particular the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor baricitinib. Five RCTs (three for baricitinib) demonstrated a consistent benefit of JAK inhibitor therapy over placebo across various clinical outcomes in adult patients with at least 50% scalp hair loss. Overall, hair regrowth varied widely for the other drug classes and was generally low for patients with moderate-to-severe AA. Relapses were commonly observed during treatment and upon discontinuation. Adverse effects were generally consistent with the known safety profile of each intervention. The heterogeneity observed prevented the conduct of a network meta-analysis or an indirect comparison of different treatments. We found that the current management of patients with moderate-to-severe AA often relies on the use of treatments that have not been well evaluated in clinical trials. The most robust evidence identified supported the use of baricitinib, and other oral JAK inhibitors, in patients with severe AA.

Project description:IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit-risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk-benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA).MethodsPost-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria-PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles.ResultsUPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7-12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9-16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9-15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA.ConclusionIn patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster).

Dataset Information

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

Objective

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets