Characteristics of patients initiating raloxifene compared to those initiating bisphosphonates

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Both raloxifene and bisphosphonates are indicated for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, however these medications have different efficacy and safety profiles. It is plausible that physicians would prescribe these agents to optimize the benefit/risk profile for individual patients. The objective of this study was to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients initiating raloxifene with those of patients initiating bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was conducted using a retrospective cohort design. Female beneficiaries (45 years and older) with at least one claim for raloxifene or a bisphosphonate in 2003 through 2005 and continuous enrollment in the previous 12 months and subsequent 6 months were identified using a collection of large national commercial, Medicare supplemental, and Medicaid administrative claims databases (MarketScan^®). Patients were divided into two cohorts, a combined commercial/Medicare cohort and a Medicaid cohort. Within each cohort, characteristics (demographic, clinical, and resource utilization) of patients initiating raloxifene were compared to those of patients initiating bisphosphonate therapy. Group comparisons were made using chi-square tests for proportions of categorical measures and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. Logistic regression was used to simultaneously examine factors independently associated with initiation of raloxifene versus a bisphosphonate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Within both the commercial/Medicare and Medicaid cohorts, raloxifene patients were younger, had fewer comorbid conditions, and fewer pre-existing fractures than bisphosphonate patients. Raloxifene patients in both cohorts were less likely to have had a bone mineral density (BMD) screening in the previous year than were bisphosphonate patients, and were also more likely to have used estrogen or estrogen/progestin therapy in the previous 12 months. These differences remained statistically significant in the multivariate model.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this sample of patients enrolled in commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans, patients who initiated raloxifene treatment differed from those initiating bisphosphonates. Raloxifene patients were younger, had better overall health status and appeared to be less likely to have risk factors for new osteoporotic fractures than bisphosphonate patients. Differences in the clinical profiles of these agents may impact prescribing decisions. Investigators using observational data to make comparisons of treatment outcomes associated with these medications should take these important differences in patient characteristics into consideration.</p

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Galcanezumab Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Episodic and Chronic Migraine Using the Metrics of Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM. METHODS: Primary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs. RESULTS: During double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM). CONCLUSION: Across 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257