Mendelian randomization: estimation of inpatient hospital costs attributable to obesity.

BACKGROUND: Mendelian Randomization is a type of instrumental variable (IV) analysis that uses inherited genetic variants as instruments to estimate causal effects attributable to genetic factors. This study aims to estimate the impact of obesity on annual inpatient healthcare costs in the UK using linked data from the UK Biobank and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). METHODS: UK Biobank data for 482,127 subjects was linked with HES inpatient admission records, and costs were assigned to episodes of care. A two-stage least squares (TSLS) IV model and a TSLS two-part cost model were compared to a naïve regression of inpatient healthcare costs on body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: The naïve analysis of annual cost on continuous BMI predicted an annual cost of £21.61 [95% CI £20.33 - £22.89] greater cost per unit increase in BMI. The TSLS IV model predicted an annual cost of £14.36 [95% CI £0.31 - £28.42] greater cost per unit increase in BMI. Modelled with a binary obesity variable, the naïve analysis predicted that obese subjects incurred £205.53 [95% CI £191.45 - £219.60] greater costs than non-obese subjects. The TSLS model predicted a cost £201.58 [95% CI £4.32 - £398.84] greater for obese subjects compared to non-obese subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The IV models provide evidence for a causal relationship between obesity and higher inpatient healthcare costs. Compared to the naïve models, the binary IV model found a slightly smaller marginal effect of obesity, and the continuous IV model found a slightly smaller marginal effect of a single unit increase in BMI

Persistence to Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA Among Patients With Migraine: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: To date, real-world evidence on persistence to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or onabotulinumtoxinA have excluded eptinezumab. This retrospective cohort study was performed to compare treatment persistency among patients with migraine on anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, or eptinezumab) or onabotulinumtoxinA. METHODS: This retrospective study used IQVIA PharmMetrics data. Adult patients with migraine treated with an anti-CGRP mAb or onabotulinumtoxinA who had 12 months of continuous insurance enrollment before starting treatment were included. A most recent treatment episode analysis was used in which the most recent episode was defined as the latest treatment period with the same drug (anti-CGRP mAb or onabotulinumtoxinA) without a ≥ 15-day gap in medication supply on/after June 25, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients were indexed at the start of their most recent episode. Patients were considered non-persistent and discontinued the therapy associated with their most recent episode if there was ≥ 15-day gap in medication supply. A Cox proportional-hazards model estimated the discontinuation hazard between treatments. The gap periods and cohort definition were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The study included 66,576 patients (median age 46 years, 88.6% female). More eptinezumab-treated patients had chronic migraine (727/1074), ≥ 3 previous acute (323/1074) or preventive (333/1074) therapies, and more prior treatment episodes (3) than other treatment groups. Based on a 15-day treatment gap, patients on subcutaneous anti-CGRP mAbs had a 32% (95% CI: 1.19, 1.49; erenumab), 42% (95% CI: 1.27, 1.61; galcanezumab), and 58% (95% CI: 1.42, 1.80; fremanezumab) higher discontinuation hazard than those receiving eptinezumab, with this relationship attenuated, but still statistically significant based on 30-day and 60-day treatment gaps. There was no significant difference in the discontinuation hazard between eptinezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA. Based on a 15-day treatment gap among patients who newly initiated therapy, the discontinuation hazard of subcutaneous anti-CGRP mAbs remained significantly higher compared to eptinezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with eptinezumab demonstrated persistency that was higher than subcutaneous anti-CGRP mAbs and similar to onabotulinumtoxinA

Comparative efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion:a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO were identified from an updated systematic review. SETTING: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs of treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO. INTERVENTIONS: Ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata, aflibercept 2 mg monthly (2q4), dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, laser photocoagulation, ranibizumab+laser, or sham intervention. Bevacizumab and triamcinolone were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy outcomes were mean change in best corrected visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) and the percentage of patients gaining ≥15 letters. Safety outcome was the percentage of patients with increased intraocular pressure (IOP)/ocular hypertension (OH). RESULTS: 8 RCTs were identified for inclusion with 1743 adult patients. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment at month 6 or 12 based on letters gained was 54% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 30% for aflibercept, 16% for ranibizumab plus laser (adjunctive or prompt), and 0% for dexamethasone implant, laser or sham. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment for patients gaining ≥15 letters was 39% for aflibercept, 35% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 24% for ranibizumab plus laser, 2% for dexamethasone implant, and less than 1% for laser or sham. There was no statistical difference between ranibizumab monotherapy and aflibercept for letters gained (+1.4 letters for ranibizumab vs aflibercept with 95% credible interval (CrI) of −5.2 to +8.5 letters) or the OR for gaining ≥15 letters: 1.06 (95% CrI 0.16 to 8.94)). Dexamethasone implant was associated with significantly higher IOP/OH than antivascular endothelial growth factor agents (OR 13.1 (95% CrI 1.7 to 116.9)). CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference between ranibizumab and aflibercept

Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are anchored on a placebo comparator, and the placebo response may vary according to drug administration route. Migraine preventive treatment studies were used to evaluate ITCs and determine whether mode of administration influences placebo response and the overall study findings. Materials & methods: Change from baseline in monthlymigraine days produced by monoclonal antibody treatments (subcutaneous, intravenous) was compared using fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), network meta-regression (NMR), and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC). Results: NMA and NMR provide mixed, rarely differentiated results between treatments, whereas unanchored STC strongly favors eptinezumab over other preventive treatments. Conclusion: Further investigations are needed to determine which ITC best reflects the impact of mode of administration on placebo

Using Patient-Level Data to Develop Meaningful Cross-Trial Comparisons of Visual Impairment in Individuals with Diabetic Macular Edema

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of baseline characteristics on visual outcome of patients with diabetic macular edema and compare the results of clinical trials with different patient populations. METHODS: A model was created with patient-level data from the RESPOND/RESTORE trials to estimate the impact of baseline characteristics on increases in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, measured by letters gained on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale from baseline to month 12. Mean BCVA gains with ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata or laser photocoagulation monotherapy were predicted, assuming baseline characteristics equivalent to those in the VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME trials. These results were compared with the gain with aflibercept 2.0 mg every 8 weeks in VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME. Sensitivity analyses assessed outcome robustness. RESULTS: Baseline BCVA and central retinal thickness differed significantly between trials. In unadjusted data, patients in RESPOND/RESTORE receiving ranibizumab gained an additional 6.6 letters [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5–8.7] compared with patients receiving laser monotherapy. After adjusting data to assume baseline characteristics equivalent to VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME, patients receiving ranibizumab were predicted to gain an additional 9.9 letters (95% CI: 7.3–12.4) compared with those receiving laser monotherapy. These results were similar (0.1-letter difference in favor of aflibercept; 95% CI: −2.9 to 3.2; P = 0.94) to the gain in BCVA in patients receiving aflibercept in VIVID-DME/VISTA-DME compared with those receiving laser monotherapy (10.0 letters, 95% CI: 8.3–11.7). CONCLUSION: After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the difference in letters gained between patients receiving ranibizumab versus aflibercept was non-significant across trials, highlighting the importance of adjusting for baseline characteristics in future comparisons. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0310-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Using Patient-Level Data to Develop Meaningful Cross-Trial Comparisons of Visual Impairment in Individuals with Diabetic Macular Edema

<p><b>Article full text</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>The full text of this article can be found here<b>. </b><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0310-0">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0310-0</a></p><p></p> <p><br></p> <p><b>Provide enhanced content for this article</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced content for your article then please contact <a href="http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/”mailto:[email protected]”"><b>[email protected]</b></a>.</p> <p><br></p> <p>The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:</p> <p><br></p> <p>• Slide decks</p> <p>• Videos and animations</p> <p>• Audio abstracts</p> <p>• Audio slides</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field