Search

Introduction: The new direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapies are able to effectively treat chronic hepatitis C (CHC). This study elicited the preferences of CHC patients for treatment attributes of new DAAs., Methods: An online discrete choice experiment survey was designed to collect data from adult CHC patients in the USA, UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Patients were asked to choose from alternative hypothetical DAA options, defined by differing levels of nine attributes [i.e., treatment duration, tablet count and packaging, cure rate, required office visits when on treatment, modifications to statins or to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and risks of diarrhea, headache and nausea]. Logistic regression was used to assess preference for the treatment options., Results: A total of 328 patients with CHC completed the survey (USA, n = 227; European countries, n = 101), with a mean age of 47.7 years (SD = 14.4) and an average 11.2 years since CHC diagnosis; 51% of patients were female. More than half (60%) of the patients had treatment for CHC. Patients significantly preferred a DAA regimen with higher cure rate, shorter treatment duration, lower risks of diarrhea, headache, and nausea (all p < 0.001), reduced need for office visits when on treatment (p = 0.044), and without requiring dose reduction or timing change in PPIs (p = 0.032). Tablet counts were not found to be statistically significant., Conclusion: Given the overall high cure rates of new DAAs, CHC patients' preferences for therapy may be influenced by treatment attributes other than cure rates and tolerability. Treatments that are more convenient and require less disruption to their daily life (e.g., shorter treatment duration, no modification in PPI use, and fewer office visits when on treatment) are important to patients with CHC and should be considered when making treatment decisions., Funding: AbbVie.

Objectives: To compare outcomes of induction dosing followed by continuous adalimumab treatment with those of induction dosing with reinitiation of adalimumab (in the event of clinical deterioration) for patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (CD) who participated in the Crohn's Trial of the Fully Human Antibody Adalimumab for Remission Maintenance (CHARM)., Methods: In the CHARM trial, all patients received open-label induction therapy with adalimumab 80 mg and 40 mg at weeks 0 and 2, respectively. In total, 778 patients were randomized at week 4 to one of three groups: (1) placebo after initial induction doses (followed by reinitiation of adalimumab therapy); (2) continuous maintenance treatment with adalimumab 40 mg every other week (e.o.w.); and (3) continuous maintenance treatment with adalimumab 40 mg every week. At/after week 12, patients receiving placebo with flare or non-response could reinitiate open-label adalimumab 40 mg e.o.w., and patients receiving continuous blinded adalimumab therapy could switch to open-label 40 mg e.o.w. Patients in all groups could switch to weekly therapy with continued flare/non-response. In the previously published primary analysis, results for only those patients who had responded at week 4 (decrease in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of > or = 70 points, referred to as "randomized responders") and remained on blinded therapy were analyzed. In this analysis, data from all randomized patients were analyzed based on original randomized treatment using an intention-to-treat analysis, regardless of whether they subsequently switched to open-label therapy. Disease activity, clinical remission, number of flares, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score, number of CD-related surgeries, and hospitalization incidence were compared between the continuous and induction only/reinitiation adalimumab groups., Results: Results for all outcome measures were superior for both continuous groups compared with the induction only/reinitiation group. On the basis of median CDAI and IBDQ results, patients in both continuous treatment groups achieved statistically significantly greater improvements vs. the induction only/reinitiation group (P < 0.05). At week 56, a significantly greater percentage of patients who had received continuous adalimumab (51% for e.o.w. and 49% for weekly) were in clinical remission vs. the induction only/reinitiation group (38%, P < 0.05). Continuous adalimumab therapy was also associated with fewer flares and fewer CD-related surgeries (P < 0.05). Patients in both continuous adalimumab groups had significantly lower risks of CD-related and all-cause hospitalizations than did patients in the induction only/reinitiation group (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: For patients with active CD, continuous treatment with adalimumab was more effective than a strategy of induction dosing followed by reinitiation of adalimumab with clinical deterioration for maintenance of clinical remission, improved quality-of life outcomes, reduced flares, and a decrease in number of surgeries and risk of hospitalization.

Retrospective database analyses pose a series of methodological challenges, some of which are unique to their data sources, particularly in countries outside the US. This study aimed to qualitatively review the methodological challenges of using non-US databases to conduct retrospective economic and outcomes research studies. We conducted a MEDLINE search to obtain a sample of literature published after the year 2000 on retrospective analyses using non-US databases. We reviewed all relevant components of the selected articles in accordance with the checklist proposed for retrospective database studies by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force and identified issues found in the data sources, methods, study designs, statistics and sources of possible threats to internal and external validity. We found a wide variation in the quality of studies in terms of outcome definitions, patient selection criteria, data collection methods, sample sizes, risk adjustment methods, potential measurement errors and external validity of the studies. Few economic studies included information on indirect cost components because of a lack of relevant data. The quality of non-US retrospective database analyses varied. Future such analyses may be improved if researchers implement the checklist developed by the ISPOR Task Force on Retrospective Database Studies.