ABSTRACT Purpose A international registry analysis led by Mehra et al. to investigate the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) with or without a macrolide in 96,032 hospitalised COVID-19 patients were published on Lancet, which has raised considerable discussions in the public health community. This study aimed to critically review the quality and limitations of the Mehra et al. publication and discuss the potential influences on the use of HCQ/CQ worldwide. Method A critical review of this publication was conducted to examine the potential study bias in the study objectives, methodology, confounding factors and outcomes and summarise the external reviews. Results The very high homogeneity of the patients? characteristics at baseline was inconsistent with region specific epidemiology and several critical confounding factors. The results indicated that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with a hazard ratio of 0.5, which suggested a technical problem in the estimation of the propensity scores. Several major risk factors for mortality identified in the analysis were treated as a minor risk or neutral or even protective factors. Antiviral treatments were recognised as an effective method to reduce mortality and were neither further studied nor integrated in the multivariate Cox model. Conclusion This research appeared to carry multiple biases. An extensive audit of the study, conditions of review and acceptance for publication in the Lancet of that study are requested to avoid damage to the publics? trust on the scientific community at this critical time of COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACTBackground: Dementia has become a growing health-care problem in the rapidly ageing Japanese population. This study assesses the impact of dementia on quality of life, economic burden, and productivity loss.Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of dementia on the Quality of Life (QoL), economic burden, and productivity loss among families living with dementia.Methods: An online survey was conducted among families who lived with relatives with dementia. Demographic data and information about health condition and costs of long-term care and treatment were collected. Participants were asked to answer the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, Zarit Burden Interview (ZARIT-8), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Multivariate analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with burden by families living with dementia.Results: Six hundred and thirty-five participants completed the survey. Of these participants, 50.5% were primary caregivers. Overall, 78.7% of dementia patients suffered from Alzheimer, and 43.9% needed long-term care. Compared to non-primary caregivers, primary caregivers had lower health utility scores (0.896 vs 0.873; p = 0.02), higher burden of caregiving (ZARIT-8: 21.1 vs 24.5; p < 0.0001), and higher overall work impairment (40.2% vs 20.8%; p < 0.0001), absenteeism (15.3% vs 5.7%; p < 0.0001), and presenteeism-related impairment (33.2% vs 17.3%; p < 0.0001).Conclusion: Families living with dementia caring for a person with dementia experience increased burden. Health policies related to dementia need to be considered not only for patients, but also for their families living with dementia to improve their QoL.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and treatment burden between intravitreally administered aflibercept (IVT-AFL) and ranibizumab (RBZ) treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) at 2 years. METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL in October 2018. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and/or individual patient data meta-regression was used to connect ALTAIR (assessing IVT-AFL T&E) with other studies, adjusting for between-trial differences in baseline visual acuity and age or baseline visual acuity, age, and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) status. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, including direct MAIC between IVT-AFL T&E (ALTAIR) and RBZ T&E (CANTREAT and TREX-AMD trials). RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (ALTAIR, VIEW 1 and 2, CATT, CANTREAT, and TREX) were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL T&E was assessed in one study, ALTAIR (n = 255), while RBZ T&E was assessed in two trials (n = 327). At 2 years, the median difference (95% credibility interval) between IVT-AFL T&E and RBZ T&E regarding the numbers of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained was not significant (M1: - 2.29 [- 8.10, 3.58]; M2: - 0.55 [- 6.34, 5.29]). IVT-AFL T&E was associated with significantly fewer injections than RBZ-T&E (M1: - 6.12 [- 7.60, - 4.65]; M2: - 5.93 [- 7.42, - 4.45]). Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main scenarios. CONCLUSION: Patients with wAMD receiving an IVT-AFL T&E regimen achieved and maintained improvement in visual acuity with fewer injections over 2 years compared with RBZ T&E. IVT-AFL T&E may therefore serve as the optimal therapy for wAMD, as it was associated with clinical efficacy and minimized treatment burden.

BackgroundBaloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is a new oral antiviral for influenza types A and B.

AIMS: In the COMPASS trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg once daily (od) performed better than ASA 100 mg od alone in reducing the rate of cardiovascular disease, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus ASA vs. ASA alone over a lifetime horizon, from the UK National Health System perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The base case analysis assumed that patients entered the model in the event-free health state, with the possibility to experience ≤2 events, transitioning every three-month cycle, through acute and post-acute health states of MI, ischaemic stroke (IS), or intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and death. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years-all discounted at 3.5%-and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, as well as scenario analyses. In the model, patients on rivaroxaban plus ASA lived for an average of 14.0 years with no IS/MI/ICH, and gained 9.7 QALYs at a cost of £13 947, while those receiving ASA alone lived for an average of 12.7 years and gained 9.3 QALYs at a cost of £8126. The ICER was £16 360 per QALY. This treatment was cost-effective in 98% of 5000 iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This Markov model suggests that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus ASA is a cost-effective alternative to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD.

Objectives Previous network meta-analysis (NMA) demonstrated advantageous or similar efficacy of baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) over neuraminidase inhibitors in otherwise healthy (OwH) influenza patients. This analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of baloxavir in the subgroup of high-risk (HR) patients and in the population of uncomplicated influenza consisting of OwH and HR patients with influenza. Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and ICHUSHI up to August 8th, 2018. A Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare baloxavir with oseltamivir, zanamivir, laninamivir and peramivir in HR patients and all uncomplicated patients. Results Based on the SLR, a total of 32 studies were identified as pertinent for the analysis, including 7 studies on HR patients, 13 trials on OwH patients and 14 studies on OwH?+?HR population. NMA of 10 trials assessing HR patients demonstrated comparable time to alleviation of symptoms for all treatments. Mean decline in virus titer from baseline at 24h after treatment was significantly greater for baloxavir compared with oseltamivir and peramivir. The risks of total complications and drug-related adverse events were comparable between baloxavir and zanamivir, oseltamivir and laninamivir. These findings were highly consistent with results of the NMA using pooled evidence on the uncomplicated population of OwH and HR patients. Conclusions Baloxavir was significantly more effective than placebo regarding all outcomes except for the risk of pneumonia. Besides, baloxavir was associated with similar clinical efficacy and safety, and superior antiviral activity compared to other antivirals in HR patients, as well as in the entire population of uncomplicated patients with influenza.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban, versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) from a French national health insurance perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon and cycle length of 3 months. All inputs were drawn from real-world evidence (RWE) studies: data on baseline patient characteristics at model entry were obtained from a French RWE study, clinical event rates as well as persistence rates for the VKA treatment arm were estimated from a variety of RWE studies, and a meta-analysis provided comparative effectiveness for rivaroxaban compared to VKA. Model outcomes included costs (drug costs, clinical event costs, and VKA monitoring costs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and life-years (LY) gained, incremental cost per QALY, and incremental cost per LY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model and to better understand the results drivers. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental total cost was euro714 and the total incremental QALYs and LYs were 0.12 and 0.16, respectively. The resulting incremental cost/QALY and incremental cost/LY were euro6,006 and euro4,586, respectively. The results were more sensitive to the inclusion of treatment-specific utility decrements and clinical event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no official willingness-to-pay threshold in France, these results suggest that rivaroxaban is likely to be cost-effective compared to VKA in French patients with AF from a national insurance perspective.

ABSTRACT Purpose: Gene therapy brings opportunities to discover cures for diseases for which there are no adequate treatments. As most gene therapies target rare diseases, several challenges are associated with their clinical development, such as limited population size, lack of established clinical pathways for development, and sometimes the absence of validated endpoints. The objective of this study was to systematically review and evaluate the methodology and design of European clinical trials (CTs) utilising gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs). Methods: A systematic search of online CT databases was performed using keywords to identify CTs conducted with GTMPs in Europe, published from 1 January 1995 to 31 July 2019. Results: The search identified 1571 CTs, of which 199 were identified as published articles. A total of 159 CTs remained following the elimination of duplicated CTs, non-gene therapy trials, and those conducted outside Europe. Of these, only nine CTs were randomised, double-blind, with or without parallel groups, and placebo-controlled. Conclusions: The analysed randomised CTs were conducted in accordance with Good clinical practice with low risk of bias across domains. Only one CT was identified with some concerns of bias due to lack of information regarding the randomisation process and changes in protocol.

ABSTRACT Objective: To provide recommendations for addressing previously identified key challenges in health economic evaluations of Gene Replacement Therapies (GRTs), including: 1) the assessment of clinical effectiveness; 2) the valuation of health outcomes; 3) the time horizon and extrapolation of effects beyond trial duration; 4) the estimation of costs; 5) the selection of appropriate discount rates; 6) the incorporation of broader elements of value; and 7) affordability. Methods: A literature review on economic evaluations of GRT was performed. Interviews were conducted with 8 European and US health economic experts with experience in evaluations of GRT. Targeted literature reviews were conducted to investigate further potential solutions to specific challenges. Recommendations: Experts agreed on factors to be considered to ensure the acceptability of historical cohorts by HTA bodies. Existing prospective registries or, if not available, retrospective registries, may be used to analyse different disease trajectories and inform extrapolations. The importance of expert opinion due to limited data was acknowledged. Expert opinion should be obtained using structured elicitation techniques. Broader elements of value, beyond health gains directly related to treatment, can be considered through the application of a factor to inflate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or a higher cost-effectiveness threshold. Additionally, the use of cost-benefit analysis and saved young life equivalents (SAVE) were proposed as alternatives to QALYs for the valuations of outcomes of GRT as they can incorporate broader elements of value and avoid problems of eliciting utilities for paediatric diseases. Conclusions: While some of the limitations of economic evaluations of GRT are inherent to limited clinical data and lack of experience with these treatments, others may be addressed by methodological research to be conducted by health economists.