Corrigendum: A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

Abstract Background Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. Data sources For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. Review methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. Limitations We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. Conclusions Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in the treatment of major depression in comparison with other antidepressants : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Milnacipran, a dual serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, is one of the newer antidepressants that clinicians use for the routine care of patients with major depression. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran with other antidepressants. Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of milnacipran in comparison with TCAs, SSRIs and other drugs in the acute phase of treatment for major depression. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials registers, journals, conference proceedings, trial databases of the drug-approving agencies and ongoing clinical trial registers for all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events of milnacipran versus any other antidepressant. The search was conducted in December 2006 and updated in May 2007. No language restrictions were applied. All relevant authors were contacted to supplement any incomplete reporting in the original papers. Randomized controlled trials comparing milnacipran with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase of treatment for major depression were selected. Participants were aged >= 18 years, of both sexes and with a primary diagnosis of unipolar major depression. Studies were excluded when the participants had specific psychiatric and medical co-morbidities. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of trials for inclusion, and subsequently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Metaanalyses were conducted for efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Sixteen randomized controlled trials (n = 2277) were included in the meta-analyses. Results: No differences were found in achieving clinical improvement, remission or overall tolerability when comparing milnacipran with other antidepressants. However, compared with the TCAs, fewer patients taking milnacipran were early treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm (NNH) = 15; 95% CI 10, 48). Significantly more patients taking TCAs experienced adverse events compared with milnacipran (NNH = 4; 95% CI 3, 7). Conclusions: The overall effectiveness and tolerability of milnacipran versus other antidepressants does not seem to differ in the acute phase of treatment for major depression. However, there is some evidence in favour of milnacipran over TCAs in terms of premature withdrawal due to adverse events and the rates of patients experiencing adverse events. Milnacipran may benefit some patient populations who experience adverse effects from other antidepressants in the acute phase of treatment for major depression

Mirtazapine versus other antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of adults with major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive, systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine over other antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. DATA SOURCES: Studies were initially identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register up to June 2006. The following search terms were used: depress*, dysthymi*, adjustment disorder*, mood disorder*, affective disorder, affective symptoms, and mirtazapine. No language restriction was imposed. The reference lists of the included studies, previous relevant systematic reviews, and trial registers were also hand searched. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field were contacted for more studies. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent assessors examined the quality of the trials and extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome measure was the relative risk (RR) of response (99% CIs) at the conclusion of acute-phase treatment. In relation to the early phase of treatment (at 2 weeks), there were no statistically significant differences between mirtazapine and the tricyclics in terms of the response (RR = 0.90, 99% CI = 0.69 to 1.18, p = .30 [8 trials contributed to this outcome]) or remission (RR = 0.87, 99% CI = 0.52 to 1.47, p = .50 [8 trials]) outcomes, but mirtazapine was superior to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in terms of both the response (RR = 1.36, 99% CI = 1.13 to 1.64, p < .0001 [12 trials]) and remission (RR = 1.68, 99% CI = 1.20 to 2.36, p < .0001 [12 trials]). In the subgroup analyses, mirtazapine significantly produced more response than paroxetine (RR = 2.02, 99% CI = 1.09 to 3.75, p = .003 [3 trials]) and venlafaxine (RR = 1.77, 99% CI = 1.08 to 2.89, p = .003 [2 trials]). At the end of acute-phase treatment (6-12 weeks, all trials), no significant differences were observed in the efficacy outcomes. No significant differences were observed between mirtazapine and the other antidepressants in terms of either the total number of dropouts due to any reason (21 trials) or the total number of dropouts due to the development of side effect (23 trials) during the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Although mirtazapine is likely to have a faster onset of action than SSRIs, no significant differences were observed at the end of 6 to 12 weeks' treatment. Clinicians should focus on other practically relevant considerations to tailor treatment to best fit the needs of individual patients. Copyright 2008 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc

Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: consensus on pathology and molecular tests, first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy: 1st ESMO Consensus Conference in Lung Cancer; Lugano 2010

The 1st ESMO Consensus Conference on lung cancer was held in Lugano, Switzerland on 21 and 22 May 2010 with the participation of a multidisciplinary panel of leading professionals in pathology and molecular diagnostics, medical oncology, surgical oncology and radiation oncology. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared clinically relevant questions concerning five areas: early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line metastatic NSCLC, second-/third-line NSCLC, NSCLC pathology and molecular testing, and small-cell lung cancer to be addressed through discussion at the Consensus Conference. All relevant scientific literature for each question was reviewed in advance. During the Consensus Conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question. The consensus agreement on three of these areas: NSCLC pathology and molecular testing, the treatment of first-line, and second-line/third-line therapy in metastatic NSCLC are reported in this article. The recommendations detailed here are based on an expert consensus after careful review of published data. All participants have approved this final update

Genome-wide association study identifies loci influencing concentrations of liver enzymes in plasma.

Concentrations of liver enzymes in plasma are widely used as indicators of liver disease. We carried out a genome-wide association study in 61,089 individuals, identifying 42 loci associated with concentrations of liver enzymes in plasma, of which 32 are new associations (P = 10(-8) to P = 10(-190)). We used functional genomic approaches including metabonomic profiling and gene expression analyses to identify probable candidate genes at these regions. We identified 69 candidate genes, including genes involved in biliary transport (ATP8B1 and ABCB11), glucose, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism (FADS1, FADS2, GCKR, JMJD1C, HNF1A, MLXIPL, PNPLA3, PPP1R3B, SLC2A2 and TRIB1), glycoprotein biosynthesis and cell surface glycobiology (ABO, ASGR1, FUT2, GPLD1 and ST3GAL4), inflammation and immunity (CD276, CDH6, GCKR, HNF1A, HPR, ITGA1, RORA and STAT4) and glutathione metabolism (GSTT1, GSTT2 and GGT), as well as several genes of uncertain or unknown function (including ABHD12, EFHD1, EFNA1, EPHA2, MICAL3 and ZNF827). Our results provide new insight into genetic mechanisms and pathways influencing markers of liver function