Search

The objective of regulatory authorities is to ensure a favourable risk-benefit balance for medicines in their licenced indication, without seeking to establish their place in the therapeutic armamentarium beyond that. The licenced indication covers heterogeneous subpopulations and often does not sufficiently specify the characteristics of the patients who may benefit. The regulatory information does not always show the benefit over the standard treatment(s); moreover, it only reacts to the conditions specified in the developer's application, and lacks an assessment of the clinical relevance of the benefit and its uncertainties. Many cases highlight the need to establish a more specific therapeutic benefit scenario than the licenced indication. For example, abemaciclib was approved in the adjuvant setting for high-risk patients with early breast cancer, but the appropriate level of risk and how to assess it needs to be specified. Also, pembrolizumab is approved for neoadjuvant plus adjuvant treatment in lung cancer; but it remains to be analysed whether it is superior to nivolumab in neoadjuvant treatment alone, which involves less treatment and economic burden. As therapeutic positioning is always a necessary decision, whether made at a national, regional, local, or individual level, it must be made in the most appropriate way. The absence of a multidisciplinary discussion and consensus, relying only on individual decisions to determine positioning from the outset, underestimates information gaps, inter-individual variability, and the influence of drug promotion. It can be harmful and costly. To properly manage the introduction of new medicines, it is essential to establish their benefit scenario in a multidisciplinary way. This, together with consideration of the clinical benefit provided versus the appropriate alternatives and the uncertainties of the benefit, constitutes the objective of the clinical assessment and the basis for designing a well-focused economic analysis. This allows policy-makers to make the most appropriate decisions on pricing and funding new treatments. In an ideal situation, the benefit scenario considered for the new medicine would coincide with the one established for funding, but costs that are difficult to bear may lead to restrictions and affect the final positioning after the economic and budgetary impact assessment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Manuel Jesús Cárdenas Aranzana has served on advisory boards for Merck Serono and Incyte., (Copyright © 2024. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U.)

The objective of regulatory authorities is to ensure a favorable risk-benefit balance for medicines in their licensed indication, without seeking to establish their place in the therapeutic armamentarium beyond that. The licensed indication covers heterogeneous subpopulations and often does not sufficiently specify the characteristics of the patients who may benefit. The regulatory information does not always show the benefit over the standard treatments; moreover, it only reacts to the conditions specified in the developer's application, and lacks an assessment of the clinical relevance of the benefit and its uncertainties. Many cases highlight the need to establish a more specific therapeutic benefit scenario than the licensed indication. For example, abemaciclib was approved in the adjuvant setting for high-risk patients with early breast cancer, but the appropriate level of risk and how to assess it needs to be specified. Also, pembrolizumab is approved for neoadjuvant plus adjuvant treatment in lung cancer; but it remains to be analyzed whether it is superior to nivolumab in neoadjuvant treatment alone, which involves less treatment and economic burden. As therapeutic positioning is always a necessary decision, whether made at a national, regional, local or individual level, it must be made in the most appropriate way. The absence of a multidisciplinary discussion and consensus, relying only on individual decisions to determine positioning from the outset, underestimates information gaps, inter-individual variability and the influence of drug promotion. It can be harmful and costly. To properly manage the introduction of new medicines, it is essential to establish their benefit scenario in a multidisciplinary way. This, together with consideration of the clinical benefit provided versus the appropriate alternatives and the uncertainties of the benefit, constitutes the objective of the clinical assessment and the basis for designing a well-focused economic analysis. This allows policy makers to make the most appropriate decisions on pricing and funding new treatments. In an ideal situation, the benefit scenario considered for the new medicine would coincide with the one established for funding, but costs that are difficult to bear may lead to restrictions and affect the final positioning after the economic and budgetary impact assessment., (Copyright © 2024. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U.)

Objective: To adapt the GHEMA report of abemaciclib, an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6. European Medicines Agency authorization (April 2022) includes, in combination with endocrine therapy, the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence., Method: The efficacy and safety of abemaciclib were evaluated in a randomized, open-label, and multicenter phase III study. A total of 5637 patients diagnosed with early breast cancer with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, node positive, and high risk of recurrence were included. High risk was defined as patients with 4 or more positive axillary lymph nodes, or 1-3 positive axillary lymph nodes and at least one of the following: tumor size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or Ki-67≥20%. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive adjuvant abemaciclib+endocrine therapy (n = 2808) or endocrine therapy alone (n = 2829) for 2 years, with endocrine therapy prescribed for at least 5 years., Results: With a median follow-up of 15.5 months, abemaciclib+endocrine therapy demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival versus endocrine therapy alone [HR = 0.747 (95% CI 0.598-0.932), P = 0.0096]; achieving an absolute improvement of 3.5% invasive disease-free survival rate at 2-years. These results were maintained, with a median follow-up of 27.7 months: absolute improvement of 2.7% and 5.4% in invasive disease-free survival rate at 2 and 3 years, respectively. All-causality grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 45.9% for abemaciclib and 12.9% for endocrine therapy, and included neutropenia (19.6% vs. 0.8%), leukopenia (11.4% vs. 0.4%), and diarrhea (7.8% vs. 0.2%)., Conclusions: The results of the pivotal trial are sufficient to consider abemaciclib as adjuvant treatment for high-risk early breast cancer in highly selected patients. However, in order to the efficacy results present less uncertainty, we must wait for a evaluation later, in which we can have a mature determination at 3 years (with more patients at risk)., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (S.E.F.H). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to perform an adjusted indirect treatment comparison, according to the cytogenetic profile, in terms of efficacy between different Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors used as first-line monotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Safety outcomes considered of interest were also evaluated to establish whether these options can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives., Method: A literature search was conducted in Pubmed and Embase on November 10, 2022 for phase III clinical trials studying Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in monotherapy in the first-line setting for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Results were filtered according to whether the combination of bendamustine and rituximab was used as comparator and whether they had similar populations and follow-up times. Subgroup results were meta-analyzed according to mutational characteristics by classifying patients into high and low cytogenetic risk. An adjusted indirect comparison was developed using Bucher's method. Possible therapeutic equivalence was determined by applying the guide to equivalent therapeutic alternatives., Result: Of the 39 studies obtained in the review, 2 clinical trials were selected: 1 for zanubrutinib and 1 for ibrutinib. The remaining studies were not included because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The results obtained in the adjusted indirect treatment comparison for both cytogenetic risk subgroups showed no statistically significant differences. The most relevant safety differences were atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and cardiovascular events in patients treated with ibrutinib and higher incidence of secondary cancers in patients treated with zanubrutinib. Applying the equivalent therapeutic alternatives guideline criteria, both treatments cannot be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives., Conclusions: Assuming the uncertainty associated with the adjusted indirect comparison, zanubrutinib could be considered equivalent in efficacy to ibrutinib, however, the presence of differentiating safety features precludes assigning the 2 alternatives as equivalent therapeutic alternatives., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (S.E.F.H). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to perform an adjusted indirect treatment comparison, according to the cytogenetic profile, in terms of efficacy between different Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors used as first-line monotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Safety outcomes considered of interest were also evaluated to establish whether these options can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives., Method: A literature search was conducted in Pubmed and Embase on 10 November 2022 for phase III clinical trials studying Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors in monotherapy in the first-line setting for CLL. Results were filtered according to whether the combination of bendamustine and rituximab was used as comparator and whether they had similar populations and follow-up times. Subgroup results were meta-analyzed according to mutational characteristics by classifying patients into high and low cytogenetic risk. An adjusted indirect comparison was developed using Bucher's method. Possible therapeutic equivalence was determined by applying the guide to equivalent therapeutic alternatives., Result: Of the 39 studies obtained in the review, two clinical trials were selected: one for zanubrutinib and one for ibrutinib. The remaining studies were not included because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The results obtained in the adjusted indirect treatment comparison for both cytogenetic risk subgroups showed no statistically significant differences. The most relevant safety differences were auricular fibrillation, hypertension and cardiovascular events in patients treated with ibrutinib and higher incidence of secondary cancers in patients treated with zanubrutinib. Applying the ATE guideline criteria, both treatments cannot be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives., Conclusions: Assuming the uncertainty associated with the adjusted indirect comparison, zanubrutinib could be considered equivalent in efficacy to ibrutinib, however, the presence of differentiating safety features precludes assigning the two alternatives as equivalent therapeutic alternatives., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (S.E.F.H). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The ADAURA trial demonstrated the superiority of osimertinib over a placebo with regard to disease-free survival, showing it to be indicated as an adjuvant therapy for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with mutated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The aim of the present study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis and an analysis of the budgetary impact of adjuvant therapy with osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR who had undergone resection surgery with curative intent., Methods: Analyses were based on the outcomes of the ADAURA clinical trial and were conducted through a Spanish National Health Service perspective. The outcome measures used were quality-adjusted life years (QALY)., Results: The average overall cost of adjuvant treatment with osimertinib over a period of 100 months in the overall sample of trial patients (stages IB-IIIA) was 220,961 €, compared with 197,849 € in the placebo group. Effectiveness, estimated according to QALY, was 6.26 years in the osimertinib group and 5.96 years in the placebo group, with the incremental cost-utility ratio being 77,040 €/QALY. With regard to the budgetary impact, it was estimated that, in 2021, approximately 1130 patients would be subsidiaries to receive osimertinib. This pertains to a difference of 17,375,330 € over 100 months to fund this treatment relative to no treatment., Conclusion: Taking into account a Spanish threshold of 24,000 €/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 10%, to obtain a cost-effective alternative., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: There is subgroup analysis suggesting a lack of benefit of daratumumab use in multiple myeloma (MM) and hepatic disease (HD). The objectives of this study were to conduct a systematic review and interpretation of daratumumab-based regimen efficacy in transplant-ineligible patients with untreated MM and HD., Methods: A systematic search in Pubmed ® database about randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with subgroup analysis regarding hepatic function for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) were developed. Two methodologies were applied. One of them considered statistical interaction, prespecification, biological support and consistency of subgroup results. Second methodology was two-part validated tool: preliminary questions to reject subset analysis without minimal relevance, and a checklist relating a recommendation for applicability in clinical practice., Results: It was included three records. About first methodology, statistical interaction among subgroups was found for PFS in one RCT. Subsets were prespecified in all RCTs. Biological support of efficacy differences could be reasonable. Inconsistent results were found. Second methology directly rejected applicability of subset analysis in two records. Checklist recommended "null" application of results in the remaining RCT., Conclusions: No consistent heterogeneity for daratumumab-based regimen efficacy was observed among subgroups regarding hepatic function in transplant-ineligible patients with untreated MM. Patients with normal hepatic function and HD could benefit from these treatments.

Objective: One year after the declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, only  dexamethasone has clearly shown a reduction in mortality for COVID-19  hospitalized patients. For interleukin-6 inhibitors, results are variable and  nclear. The objective was to review and analyze the effect of tocilizumab and  sarilumab on survival in this setting., Method: The PRISMA statements were fulfilled for the systematic review. A  systematic search in Medline, Embase and medRxiv was conducted to identify  randomized controlled trials with tocilizumab or sarilumab in hospitalized  patients with COVID-19. Mortality data from non-critical and critical patients  were extracted. A random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) meta-analysis was  performed for both subgroups and the whole population using MAVIS software  v. 1.1.3. Similarity and homogeneity among trials were assessed., Results: Twenty-five and 23 articles were identified in Medline and Embase,  respectively, five were trials with tocilizumab and/or sarilumab; two more were  identified at medRxiv. Seven randomized clinical trials fulfilled the  inclusion criteria. Another trial was pre-published and included post-hoc. The  meta-analysis, with eight randomized clinical trials and 6,340 patients, showed  a benefit on mortality for interleukin-6  heterogeneity (I2 = 7%), but  a low similarity among studies. The results showed no differences among  critical and non-critical patients. A sensitivity analysis excluding non-similar or  heterogeneous studies showed different results, without benefit and with low  precision of the result in non-critical patients., Conclusions: A benefit in mortality for interleukine-6 inhibitors was found, but  with important differences among the scenarios analyzed in the clinical  trials. Positive results are mainly caused by two randomized clinical trials which  are similar in concomitant use of steroids and veryhigh mortality in  critical patents. Sarilumab was poorly represented in the meta-analysis.  Nevertheless, an association between the benefit and the critical/non-critical  condition was not found. More randomized clinical trials, mainly focused in  atients at high mortality risk, are needed to confirm the benefit of interleukine- 6 inhibitors for COVID-19. Sarilumab was underrepresented in the meta- analysis., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies. The aim of the article is to analyse the cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact of talazoparib treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic gBRCA + breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Analyses were based on the EMBRACA clinical trial and the model was constructed according to "partitioned survival analysis". Two scenarios were considered in order to compare talazoparib with the alternatives of capecitabine, vinorelbine and eribulin: 1. Chemotherapy in patients pre-treated with anthracyclines/taxanes and, 2. A second- and subsequent-line treatment option. Treatment types following relapse were recorded in the mentioned clinical trial. The effectiveness measure used was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The average health cost of patients treated at 43 months with talazoparib was 84,360.86€, whilst current treatment costs were 26,683.90€. The effectiveness of talazoparib was 1.93 years of survival (1.09 QALY) relative to 1.58 years (0.83 QALY) in the treatment group. The incremental cost-utility ratio was 252,420.04€/QALY. This represents the additional cost required to earn an additional QALY when changing from regular treatment to talazoparib. Regarding budgetary impact, the number of patients susceptible to receiving treatment with between 94 and 202 talazoparib was estimated, according to scenario and likelihood. The 3-year cost difference was between 6.9 and 9 million euros. The economic evaluation conducted shows an elevated incremental cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact. Taking these results into account, the price of talazoparib would have to be lower than that taken as a reference to reach the cost-utility thresholds., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: New monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin generelated peptide pathway have recently been developed for the  prevention of migraine. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy  of monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin generelated peptide  pathway drugs in chronic migraine through an adjusted indirect  treatment comparison, and to establish whether they can be considered  equivalent therapeutic alternatives in this pathology., Method: A bibliographic search of randomized clinical trials was performed in PubMed database on December 26, 2019. The inclusion criteria were phase II/III randomized clinical trials of  monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin generelated peptide  pathway with similar population, length of follow-up and treatment  comparator. The reduction of at least 50% migraine-days/month was  selected as efficacy endpoint. Chronic migraine was defined as ≥ 15  headache days/month, of which ≥ 8 were migraine-days (event duration  ≥ 4 hours). Randomized clinical trials with different clinical chronic  migraine context and definition of disease were excluded. An indirect  treatment comparison was developed using Bucher's method. The  equivalent therapeutic alternatives positioning guide was used for the  evaluation of potentially equivalent alternatives. Delta value (Δ,  maximum difference as clinical criterion of equivalence) was calculated  as half of absolute risk reduction obtained in a meta-analysis of  randomized clinical trials included in indirect treatment comparison., Results: Thirty randomized clinical trials were found: erenumab (n =  12), fremanezumab (n = 7), galcanezumab (n = 10) and eptinezumab (n = 1). Three studies were selected: one of erenumab, one of  fremanezumab and another of eptinezumab. The rest were not included  in indirect treatment comparison for non-compliance of inclusion criteria.  Results of indirect treatment comparison among different regimens of  studied drugs showed no statistically significant differences, and the  most part of 95% confidence interval was within calculated delta margins (Δ = 9.5%). No relevant safety differences among the three drugs were  found., Conclusions: Indirect treatment comparison showed no statistically  significant differences in reduction of ≥ 50% migraine days/month  between erenumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab. Probable clinical  equivalence was found between these drugs in terms of efficacy and  safety, therefore they could be considered equivalent therapeutic  alternatives in chronic migraine., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)

What Is Known and Objective: Subgroup analysis plays an important role in clinical decision-making. Correct management of subgroup analysis is necessary to optimize effectiveness, safety and efficiency of treatments. No homogeneous criteria have been developed for interpretation of subgroup analysis. In this study, the researcher develops a checklist to evaluate the reliability and applicability of the results of subset analyses., Methods: With a review of previous literature, three main criteria were included in the checklist: statistical association, biological plausibility and consistency among studies. Statistical association considered interaction probability, prespecification of analysis, number of subgroups analysed, sample size and positive/negative result in global analysis. Each item was given an indicative score. Total score was related to a level of applicability for the results in clinical practice. Checklist validation included interinvestigator concordance and assessment about utility. Three drug examples were used to validate the tool., Results and Discussion: Twenty-six evaluators showed adequate interinvestigator concordance (kappa 0.79, 1 and 0.83 for each drug example regarding applicability). Kappa values increased to 0.94, 1 and 1 after group discussion. Checklist utility score was greater than 4.7/5 in three drug examples. In pre-analysis, inter-researcher agreement on global applicability recommendation of subgroup results to practice was 92.3% (ramucirumab), 96% (nivolumab) and 100% (mepolizumab). In post-analysis, inter-researcher agreement on applicability recommendation of subgroup results was 100%, 94.45% and 100%, respectively. The checklist validation shows a high interindividual agreement of the results, both with respect to the evaluation of the applicability of subgroup analysis and concerning clinical decision-making., What Is New and Conclusion: We have developed the first validated tool for interpretation of subgroup analyses. The checklist contributes to the adoption of homogeneous criteria for subgroup analyses, thereby allowing discussion and evaluation of the effects of a health intervention., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Drug use in pregnancy is essential and beneficial, but it is needed to check their safety. Available scientific evidence is poor and difficult to interpret. Risk classifications (FDA, ADEC) have shown to be too simple and categorical; they lead to inaccurate perceptions of risk and unfortunate decisions, such as interrumption of medication, or abortion. This has become clear with antidepressants or the antiretroviral efavirenz. Although abortion is not justified, misinformation contributes even more to the problem. Information tends to obviate that not every risk in pregnancy is teratogenic, that the existence of risk does not imply high probability, and that the nature and probability of the risk vary according to the stage.