Cost-Effectiveness of Bosutinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in the Second-Line Setting

Background A recently conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparison demonstrated that bosutinib improved progression-free survival, and delayed progression to advanced disease compared with dasatinib and nilotinib in patients with second line (2L) chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). However, the long-term clinical and economic impact of using bosutinib versus dasatinib and nilotinib has not been evaluated. The objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of bosutinib compared with dasatinib and bosutinib compared with nilotinib from a US payer perspective. Methods A cost-effectiveness model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free, progression, and death. Trial data (individual patient-level and aggregate-level data) informed the progression-free and overall survival estimates. Costs included drugs and medical resource use. Utility values were obtained from literature. Sensitivity analyses (SAs) included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs). Results Comparing bosutinib versus dasatinib resulted in a gain of 0.4 discounted life years, 1.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs of $28,459 (values in 2020 US dollars), for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of$19,811/QALY gained. Comparing bosutinib versus nilotinib resulted in a gain of 0.8 discounted life-years, 1.8 QALYs, and incremental costs of $76,563, for an ICER of$41,932/QALY gained. Drug costs and extrapolation distribution type were the main drivers of the model in the one-way SAs. In the PSAs, bosutinib had >90% and >80% probabilities of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY versus dasatinib and nilotinib, respectively. Conclusions Our results suggest that compared with dasatinib and nilotinib, bosutinib may represent good value for money for treating 2L CP-CML patients

Hierarchical Construct Validity of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM Version II) among Outpatient Pharmacy Consumers

AbstractObjectivesThe objectives of this study were twofold: 1) to evaluate the construct validity of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM v. II) using structural equation modeling (SEM); and 2) to assess its concurrent validity using medication adherence criteria.MethodsPharmacy patients filling a new medication prescription (n = 342) were recruited from 14 Michigan pharmacies to participate in a 4-week treatment satisfaction study. The TSQM v. II was tested for model fit against an established theoretical model (the Decisional Balance Model of Treatment Satisfaction) using hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis (HCFA). Regression and discriminant analytic models were used to examine the criterion-related validity of the measure.ResultsAn exploratory factor analysis, used for TSQM v. II item reduction, revealed a strongly dimensional instrument (Effectiveness, Side Effects, and Convenience) and explained 88% of total pooled variance. Results of an HCFA using the final TSQM v. II items suggested a good model fit with the data (P > 0.54). In support of concurrent validity, the TSQM scales explained between 9% and 20% of the variance in dosing adherence and 60% of the variance in the likelihood of future use. Discriminant analysis demonstrated the superior classification power of the hierarchical model of treatment satisfaction over the discrete attribute model when predicting medication discontinuation.ConclusionsThe TSQM v. II has equivalent measurement characteristics as the TSQM v. I, yet uses four fewer items and more consistent wording. The value of the Decisional Balance Model for estimation of dosing adherence and medication persistence over time is discussed

Overall survival of glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine, azacitidine, and decitabine among adult patients with previously untreated AML: comparative effectiveness using simulated treatment comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, treatments for older patients with AML ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapies were limited to hypomethylating agents, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), or clinical trials. In 2018, the FDA approved combination glasdegib (GLAS) plus LDAC based on Phase II results demonstrating improved overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone in previously untreated AML. However, no randomized clinical trials have directly compared GLAS + LDAC with other AML treatments. OBJECTIVE: Using both indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC), which adjusts for baseline differences between trials, the comparative effectiveness of GLAS + LDAC was compared with hypomethylating agent azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published trials of AZA or DEC versus LDAC among older AML patients ineligible for high-intensity chemotherapy. In addition to standard and covariate-adjusted ITC, STC was performed following guidance from the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU). Using individual patient data from the Phase II GLAS + LDAC study, population-specific OS hazard ratios (HR) for GLAS + LDAC versus AZA or DEC were compared. Furthermore, covariate-adjusted ITC (Cox multivariate models) and STC were repeated using GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC data propensity-weighted for within-trial mean cytogenetic risk. As this initial step was not specified in the DSU, results from this second method were compared to the first STC following DSU guidance only. RESULTS: Standard ITC and STC both demonstrated significantly improved OS for GLAS + LDAC versus either AZA or DEC. Adjusting for key covariates, STC stepwise exponential models demonstrated GLAS + LDAC superiority to both AZA (HR=0.424; 95% CI: 0.228, 0.789) and DEC (HR=0.505; 95% CI: 0.269, 0.949). These significant results held using full or step-wise approaches, following DSU guidance only or the weighted STC approach. CONCLUSION: Using ITC and STC, GLAS + LDAC demonstrated superior OS to AZA or DEC in an adult population with previously untreated AML for whom intensive chemotherapy is not an option

Hardness, function, emotional well-being, satisfaction and the overall sexual experience in men using 100-mg fixed-dose or flexible-dose sildenafil citrate

The prescribing information for sildenafil citrate (VIAGRA, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) recommends flexible dosing (50 mg initially, adjusted to 100 or 25 mg based on effectiveness and tolerability) in most men with erectile dysfunction (ED). In many men, however, 100 mg may be the most appropriate initial dose because it would reduce the need for titration and could prevent discouragement and treatment abandonment should 50 mg be insufficient. Results of two previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled sildenafil trials of similar design except for a fixed-dose vs flexible-dose regimen were analyzed. Relative to the flexible-dose, approximately one-third more men were satisfied with an initial and fixed dose of 100 mg. In addition, tolerability was similar, and improvements from baseline in outcomes on validated, ED-specific, patient-reported questionnaires were either similar (erectile function and the percentage of completely hard and fully rigid erections) or greater (emotional well-being and the overall sexual experience). The similarity in outcomes is not surprising given that almost 90% of the men in the flexible-dose trial titrated to 100 mg after 2 weeks. These data suggest prescription of an initial dose of 100 mg for men with ED, except in those for whom it is inappropriate

Overview of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory for the Quantitative Assessment of Items in Developing Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures

BackgroundThe US Food and Drug Administration's guidance for industry document on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) defines content validity as "the extent to which the instrument measures the concept of interest" (FDA, 2009, p. 12). According to Strauss and Smith (2009), construct validity "is now generally viewed as a unifying form of validity for psychological measurements, subsuming both content and criterion validity" (p. 7). Hence, both qualitative and quantitative information are essential in evaluating the validity of measures.MethodsWe review classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) approaches to evaluating PRO measures, including frequency of responses to each category of the items in a multi-item scale, the distribution of scale scores, floor and ceiling effects, the relationship between item response options and the total score, and the extent to which hypothesized "difficulty" (severity) order of items is represented by observed responses.ResultsIf a researcher has few qualitative data and wants to get preliminary information about the content validity of the instrument, then descriptive assessments using classical test theory should be the first step. As the sample size grows during subsequent stages of instrument development, confidence in the numerical estimates from Rasch and other IRT models (as well as those of classical test theory) would also grow.ConclusionClassical test theory and IRT can be useful in providing a quantitative assessment of items and scales during the content-validity phase of PRO-measure development. Depending on the particular type of measure and the specific circumstances, the classical test theory and/or the IRT should be considered to help maximize the content validity of PRO measures

Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Background: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. Objective: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naive to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naive) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). Methods: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, >/=75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. Results: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naive patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naive and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naive or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naive patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). Conclusions: Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naive to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX)

Determinants of patient recruitment in a multicenter clinical trials group: trends, seasonality and the effect of large studies

BACKGROUND: We examined whether quarterly patient enrollment in a large multicenter clinical trials group could be modeled in terms of predictors including time parameters (such as long-term trends and seasonality), the effect of large trials and the number of new studies launched each quarter. We used the database of all clinical studies launched by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) between October 1986 and November 1999. Analyses were performed in two datasets: one included all studies and substudies (n = 475, total enrollment 69,992 patients) and the other included only main studies (n = 352, total enrollment 57,563 patients). RESULTS: Enrollment differed across different months of the year with peaks in spring and late fall. Enrollment accelerated over time (+27 patients per quarter for all studies and +16 patients per quarter for the main studies, p < 0.001) and was affected by the performance of large studies with target sample size > 1,000 (p < 0.001). These relationships remained significant in multivariate autoregressive modeling. A time series based on enrollment during the first 32 quarters could forecast adequately the remaining 21 quarters. CONCLUSIONS: The fate and popularity of large trials may determine the overall recruitment of multicenter groups. Modeling of enrollment rates may be used to comprehend long-term patterns and to perform future strategic planning

Relationships of the Psychological Influence of Food and Barriers to Lifestyle Change to Weight and Utilization of Online Weight Loss Tools

Abstract: Introduction: The psychological influence of food (PFS) and perceived barriers to lifestyle change (PBLC) were considered as predictors of body mass index and website tool utilization (TU) in an online weight loss program. Materials and Methodology: An archival analysis of all (N = 1361) overweight/obese (BMI M = 31.6 + 6.24 kg/m 2), adult (M = 42.0 + 10.72 years) users (82.4 % female) of an evidence-based, multidisciplinary Internet weight loss program was performed. Predictor variables included: PFS and PBLC, age, and longest maintained weight loss in relation to 1) BMI 2