Risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes newly treated with DPP-4 inhibitors or other oral glucose-lowering medications: A retrospective registry study on 127,555 patients from the Nationwide OsMed Health-DB Database

Aims Oral glucose-lowering medications are associated with excess risk of heart failure (HF). Given the absence of comparative data among drug classes, we performed a retrospective study in 32 Health Services of 16 Italian regions accounting for a population of 18 million individuals, to assess the association between HF risk and use of sulphonylureas, DPP-4i, and glitazones. Methods and results We extracted data on patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated treatment with DPP-4i, thiazolidinediones, or sulphonylureas alone or in combination with metformin during an accrual time of 2 years. The endpoint was hospitalization for HF (HHF) occurring after the first 6 months of therapy, and the observation was extended for up to 4 years. A total of 127 555 patients were included, of whom 14.3% were on DPP-4i, 72.5% on sulphonylurea, 13.2% on thiazolidinediones, with average 70.7% being on metformin as combination therapy. Patients in the three groups differed significantly for baseline characteristics: age, sex, Charlson index, concurrent medications, and previous cardiovascular events. During an average 2.6-year follow-up, after adjusting for measured confounders, use of DPP-4i was associated with a reduced risk of HHF compared with sulphonylureas [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.97; P = 0.026]. After propensity matching, the analysis was restricted to 39 465 patients, and the use of DPP-4i was still associated with a lower risk of HHF (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-0.94; P = 0.018). Conclusion In a very large observational study, the use of DPP-4i was associated with a reduced risk of HHF when compared with sulphonylureas

Price and reimbursement for orphan medicines and managed entry agreements: does Italy need a framework?

This article illustrates a consensus opinion of an expert panel on the need and usefulness of a framework for price and reimbursement (P&R) process and managed entry agreements (MEAs) for orphan medicines in Italy.This opinion was gathered in three rounds: an introductory document was sent to the panel and discussed during a recorded online meeting. A second document was sent to the panel for their review. In the third step the final document was validated. Members of the expert panel are the authors of the article.The panel agreed that Italy does not need a specific value framework for orphan medicines, driving the P&R process. Rather, a more structured value framework for all medicines tailored to the specific drugs can be useful. For orphan drugs, the panel advocated for a multidisciplinary approach and the contribution of different stakeholders to value assessment, and acknowledged the importance of addressing, more than for other drugs, unmet needs, equity issues and societal value. The panel raised the need of increasing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. Experts, acknowledging the growing criticisms in implementation of outcome-based agreements in Italy, expressed their position against their abandonment in favour of discounts only and supported orphan medicines as natural candidates for these agreements.Finally, the panel made some recommendations on the appraisal process for orphan medicines, including an early discussion on the uncertainty of the evidence generated and the adoption of a structured approach to identify the agreement, which better responds to the uncertainty

Cisplatin versus cisplatin plus doxorubicin for standard-risk hepatoblastoma.

Contains fulltext : 79859.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Preoperative cisplatin alone may be as effective as cisplatin plus doxorubicin in standard-risk hepatoblastoma (a tumor involving three or fewer sectors of the liver that is associated with an alpha-fetoprotein level of >100 ng per milliliter). METHODS: Children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma who were younger than 16 years of age were eligible for inclusion in the study. After they received one cycle of cisplatin (80 mg per square meter of body-surface area per 24 hours), we randomly assigned patients to receive cisplatin (every 14 days) or cisplatin plus doxorubicin administered in three preoperative cycles and two postoperative cycles. The primary outcome was the rate of complete resection, and the trial was powered to test the noninferiority of cisplatin alone (<10% difference in the rate of complete resection). RESULTS: Between June 1998 and December 2006, 126 patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin and 129 were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin plus doxorubicin. The rate of complete resection was 95% in the cisplatin-alone group and 93% in the cisplatin-doxorubicin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.1 to 7.0); these rates were 99% and 95%, respectively, in the per-protocol analysis. Three-year event-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 83% (95% CI, 77 to 90) and 95% (95% CI, 91 to 99) in the cisplatin group, and 85% (95% CI, 79 to 92) and 93% (95% CI, 88 to 98) in the cisplatin-doxorubicin group (median follow-up, 46 months). Acute grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent with combination therapy (74.4% vs. 20.6%). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with cisplatin plus doxorubicin, cisplatin monotherapy achieved similar rates of complete resection and survival among children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma. Doxorubicin can be safely omitted from the treatment of standard-risk hepatoblastoma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003912.