Predictors of 1-year compliance with adaptive servoventilation in patients with heart failure and sleep disordered breathing: preliminary data from the ADVENT-HF trial

Despite its effectiveness in suppressing sleep disordered breathing (SDB), positive airway pressure therapy (PAP) is not always well tolerated by patients and long-term adherence can be problematic. Recently, two multicentre, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) tested the effects of PAP for patients with cardiovascular disease and co-existing SDB on morbidity and mortality with negative outcomes [1, 2]. Relatively poor adherence to PAP therapy (mean 3.7 and 3.3 h·day-1, respectively) in these two trials might have contributed to their poor results. Indeed, higher PAP use per day is associated with better clinical outcomes than lower use [3]

Impact of evergreening on patients and health insurance: a meta analysis and reimbursement cost analysis of citalopram/escitalopram antidepressants

<p>Abstract</p> <p><b>Background</b></p> <p>"Evergreening" refers to the numerous strategies whereby owners of pharmaceutical products use patent laws and minor drug modifications to extend their monopoly privileges on the drug. We aimed to evaluate the impact of evergreening through the case study of the antidepressant citalopram and its chiral switch form escitalopram by evaluating treatment efficacy and acceptability for patients, as well as health insurance costs for society.</p> <p><b>Methods</b></p> <p>To assess efficacy and acceptability, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy and acceptability. We compared direct evidence (meta-analysis of results of head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (adjusted indirect comparison of results of placebo-controlled trials). To assess health insurance costs, we analyzed individual reimbursement data from a representative sample of the French National Health Insurance Inter-regime Information System (SNIIR-AM) from 2003 to 2010, which allowed for projecting these results to the whole SNIIR-AM population (53 million people).</p> <p><b>Results</b></p> <p>In the meta-analysis of seven head-to-head trials (2,174 patients), efficacy was significantly better for escitalopram than citalopram (combined odds ratio (OR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.46)). However, for the adjusted indirect comparison of 10 citalopram and 12 escitalopram placebo-controlled trials, 2,984 and 3,777 patients respectively, efficacy was similar for the two drug forms (combined indirect OR 1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)). Because of the discrepancy, we could not combine direct and indirect data (test of inconsistency, <it>P </it>= 0.07). A similar discrepancy was found for treatment acceptability. The overall reimbursement cost burden for the citalopram, escitalopram and its generic forms was 120.6 million Euros in 2010, with 96.8 million Euros for escitalopram.</p> <p><b>Conclusions</b></p> <p>The clinical benefit of escitalopram versus citalopram remains uncertain. In our case of evergreening, escitalopram represented a substantially high proportion of the overall reimbursement cost burden as compared with citalopram and the generic forms.</p