Author Correction: Meta-analyses of sulodexide and other drugs in prevention and treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome

Correction to: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2022; 26 (24): 9372-9381. DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202212_30688-PMID: 36591846-published online on December 21, 2022. After publication, the authors found a typo in the discussion section. The sentence to amend is the following one: ·       In meta-analyses of observational studies, we found a low incidence of PTS, with 9% of patients presenting PTS among patients receiving sulodexide and a 50% reduction in the risk of PTS in patients receiving rivaroxaban. The "9%" in the sentence below should be changed to "15%" (in order to align the Discussion section with the Results section and the Abstract. There are amendments to this paper. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. https://www.europeanreview.org/article/30688.

Meta-analyses of sulodexide and other drugs in prevention and treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common chronic complication of deep vein thrombosis. Elastic compression (ECS) is the common pillar for PTS prevention and treatment, while the pharmacological approach for PTS includes direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and venoactive drugs (VADs) for prevention and treatment, respectively. Sulodexide can be used both in long-term prevention and in the treatment of PTS. To better understand the efficacy of the main drugs used in the prevention (sulodexide or DOACs) and treatment of PTS (sulodexide or VADs), pairwise meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs were conducted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for observational studies and RCTs was performed. Incidence of PTS, reduction in PTS signs or symptoms and proportion of patients with complete venous ulcers healing were the primary outcomes for prevention and treatment of PTS, respectively. Fixed and Random effect model meta-analyses were performed. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. R® software was used for the analysis.

RESULTS

893 articles were identified during the search. 8 observational studies (6 for DOACs and 2 for sulodexide) and 2 RCTs for sulodexide, out of the 11 studies included in the qualitative synthesis, were included for the prevention and treatment of PTS, respectively. Meta-analyses of observational studies showed an overall incidence of PTS of 15% (95% CI, 11-19) for sulodexide, and a 50% reduction of PTS signs and/or symptoms for rivaroxaban compared to warfarin (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.65). The overall estimate of the two sulodexide RCTs showed a significant improvement in complete ulcer healing, with an OR of 2.32 (95% CI, 1.49-3.63).

CONCLUSIONS

In prevention of PTS, sulodexide and rivaroxaban showed a low incidence and reduced risk of PTS respectively, while in PTS treatment, sulodexide was significantly effective in the complete ulcers healing. These results confirm the need to move from the traditional single-pillar approach with elastic compression stockings to a more effective multi-pillar approach, tailoring the treatment to each individual patient.

Biologics for psoriatic arthritis: network meta-analysis in review

OBJECTIVE

A review of network meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of biologics for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on electronic databases to identify Bayesian meta-analysis reporting clinical parameters of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of biologics that are approved for the treatment of PsA patients.

RESULTS

We identified 19 studies and included them for review. There is insufficient statistical evidence to demonstrate clear differences in effectiveness between available biologic agents for PsA due to many differences in methods and clinical parameters reported in the studies. Old biologics are reported to be safe.

CONCLUSIONS

New molecules approved for the treatment of PsA appear promising treatments but further comparative studies methodologically well-conducted are necessary. It is also necessary to follow strictly international recommendations to conduct NMA to better help physicians and decision-makers in making appropriate decisions.

Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of episodic cluster headache drugs

OBJECTIVE

The drugs used in Europe to treat episodic cluster headache (eCH) are mainly verapamil and lithium carbonate, even though topiramate and pizotifen can be used. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody was approved by FDA recently for prophylaxis treatment of eCH. In order to evaluate the efficacy of galcanezumab compared to the drugs used for the preventive treatment of eCH, a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) of only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library including RCTs and observational studies was conducted. The primary outcomes for the NMA included the main change from baseline in reducing ECH attacks while the percentage of responders was used to pairwise comparisons of the observational studies. The NMA was conducted using a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model with deviance information criterion (DIC) reported for both models. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was shown only for the model with the lower DIC.

RESULTS

Three RCTs and six observational studies were included in the SLR. The Bayesian NMA was performed on the two RCTs included in the SLR, specifically galcanezumab and verapamil studies. SUCRA indicated that galcanezumab had the highest probability of being the most effective treatment (probability = 66.33%) compared to verapamil (probability = 31.58%) and placebo (probability = 2.09%). Galcanezumab was also the treatment with the highest overall probability to be the second most effective (probability = 88.79%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that galcanezumab is more effective compared to verapamil as a prophylaxis treatment for reducing eCH attacks in adults. Further, head-to-head RCTs of galcanezumab vs. treatments using in clinical practice are needed to better assess its comparative efficacy and benefit-risk profile.

Differences in biologics for treating ankylosing spondylitis: the contribution of network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) is a chronic form of arthritis of unknown origin affecting the spine. In this study, we aimed to identify clinical and safety profiles of adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, and secukinumab that are biologic agents (biologics) mainly used for the treatment of AS, and to understand differences between them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An extensive literature research was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE in order to identify all network meta-analysis (NMA) and/or mixed treatment comparison (MTC) papers. NMA and/or MTC, with a ranking of the effectiveness of biologics in AS, were included in the analysis, and the adhesion to ISPOR guidelines was investigated.

RESULTS

60 studies were identified; after applying exclusion criteria methods, 7 studies underwent further analysis. Infliximab was the drug that exhibited the highest probability for achieving clinical efficacy by ASAS20 at 12 and 24 weeks. Considering only subcutaneous biologics, Golimumab achieved the highest probability for achieving the ASAS20 response at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from NMA on the use of biologics in AS indicates infliximab emerged as the drug with the highest probability of obtaining ASAS20 response both at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment.

Systematic literature review and network Meta-analysis of sulodexide and other drugs in chronic venous disease

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical efficacy of sulodexide, including a comparison with venoactive drugs (VAD) (micronized purified flavonoid fraction, MPFF; hydroxy-ethyl-rutosides, HR; calcium dobesilate;Ruscus extract combined with hesperidin methyl chalcone and vitamin C, Ruscus+HMC+VitC; horse chestnut seed extract, HCSE) and pentoxifylline in patients with chronic venous disease.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Proportion of patients with complete venous ulcer healing was the primary outcome and lower leg volume, foot volume, ankle circumference and symptoms were the secondary outcomes. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was perfomed with random effects models using only RCTs. A meta-analysis of observational studies was performed for sulodexide because no RCT could be included in NMA for symptoms or signs.

RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs and eighteen observational studies were identified. Sulodexide was included only in a single NMA for the proportion of patients with complete ulcer healing and it showed to have the highest probability of being the best treatment (48%) compared with pentoxifylline (37%) and MPFF (16%). MPFF was the most effective treatment in reducing lower leg volume, CIVIQ-20 score and pain VAS scale while calcium dobesilate and Ruscus+HMC+VitC were the most effective in reducing foot volume and ankle circumference respectively.Meta-analyses of observational studies for sulodexide showed that it improves significantly the scoring of pain, feeling of swelling, heaviness and parasthesiae measured by Likert scales.

CONCLUSIONS

Sulodexide is at least as effective as pentoxifylline and more effective than MPFF in improving the rate of ulcer healing in patients with CVD. VADs are effective in improving venous symptoms and signs, as was also shown by sulodexide in the meta-analysis of observational studies. The relative effectiveness of sulodexide and VADs needs to be evaluated by an RCT in order to better inform clinical practice.

Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus switching to different mechanism of action therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction:

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.

Methods:

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.

Results:

We identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96–1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.

Discussion:

Results suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.

Plain language summary

Assessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature

A review of network meta-analysis comparing biologics in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Even though in recent years significant improvements have been made in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis due to the introduction of biologic agents, it is still difficult to identify the most effective and safest available treatment. The choice and comparison between biological agents are a challenge, for only limited head-to-head clinical studies are available. The aim of this manuscript is to review the published network meta-analysis (NMA) to gain a better understanding of efficacy and safety of biological agents and small molecules in the management of RA patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify network meta-analyses from 2008 to June 2019 comparing efficacy and safety of licensed biological agents and tsDMARDS at the approved dosages using predefined text words related to the topic. The following scenarios have been investigated: patients not responding to csDMARD (cDMARDs - IR); csDMARD naïve patients; patients not responding to biologics (bDMARDs - IR); patients in biological monotherapy.

RESULTS

On the basis of the data present in the literature, we are able to hypothesize some trends of response in terms of efficacy in different subsets of patients, for example patients in monotherapy, bDMARds unresponsive patients, and Methotrexate-naive patients. The differences of the results presented in many works are due to the different inclusion criteria used in the studies, the type of biologics agent used in each study (according to the available molecules in the different years of publication), as well as differences in the methodology of NMA and in the presentation of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the next NMA follows the indications suggested by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) so that the results are comparable and comprehensible.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Sulodexide and Other Extended Anticoagulation Treatments for Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Objective  This network meta-analysis (NMA) assesses the clinical comparative efficacy and safety of sulodexide versus direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and aspirin in patients with an unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods  We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library using both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Reduction in recurrent deep venous thrombosis (r-DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Other secondary end points were also included. We performed a fixed, random effects, and hierarchical models Bayesian NMA for each outcome. Results  We identified 18 RCTs and seven observational studies. Random models showed sulodexide is the best treatment compared with DOACs, VKA, and aspirin at reducing the risk of CRNMB, for preventing death from any cause, and VTE/PE/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke with 0.47, 0.81, and 0.65 probabilities, respectively. In the random model sulodexide was the best treatment for reducing the risk of MB with a 0.50 probability and hierarchical model that confirmed favorable results. Random and hierarchical models showed sulodexide and DOACs to be the best treatments for reducing PE risk. Sulodexide was more effective than aspirin for reducing r-DVT with 0.12 and less of 0.0001 probabilities, respectively. Conclusion  Sulodexide is more effective for reducing MB and CRNMB, for preventing deaths from any cause, and from VTE/PE/MI/stroke, than other treatments, for both random and hierarchical models. Sulodexide showed to be more effective than aspirin in reducing the risk of r-DVT and PE. Sulodexide's reduction in bleeding while protecting from recurrent DVT risk makes this therapeutic option an important alternative for extended anticoagulation treatment.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of viscosupplementation with hylan G-F 20 for knee and hip osteoarthritis

Purpose

To estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of viscosupplementation with one intra-articular (IA) injection of 6 mL hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc-One^®) and with three injections of 2 mL hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc^®3×2) in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients compared with conventional support therapy (CST - eg, NSAIDs and acetaminophen) and the cost-effectiveness of one IA injection of 2 mL hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc^®1×2) in hip OA patients compared with CST from an Italian Health System perspective.

Methods

The model used was a Markov model with states for stages II-IV on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale and runs on 6-month cycles over a 5-year time horizon. A 3.5% discount was applied to both costs and utilities. Direct costs were determined from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. A one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted for both comparisons.

Results

Hylan G-F 20 1×6 mL and hylan G-F 20 3×2 mL for knee OA were very likely to be cost-effective when compared to acetaminophen (ICER = €3,160.61 and €3,845.81 per QALY, respectively) and NSAIDs as both ICERs are below €25,000. The hip OA treatment by hylan G-F 20 1×2 mL was dominant compared to NSAIDs and very likely compared to acetaminophen. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were confirmed by one-way sensitivity analysis. The budget impact analysis for knee and hip OA showed a small increase in expenditure during 5 years.

Conclusions

Hylan G-F 20 1×6 mL/hylan G-F 20 is a cost-effectiveness treatment compared to NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the treatment of knee/hip OA in Italy. The treatment of hip and knee OA resulted in cost-saving with hylan G-F 20 1×2 mL and economically sustainable with hylan G-F 20 1×6 mL. However, Real Word Evidence studies should be conducted in order to estimate costs associated with both prosthetics and to understand the reduction of physiotherapy and medication due to hylan G-F 20.

The Challenge of Treating Early-Stage Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Contribution of Mixed Treatment Comparison to Choosing Appropriate Biologic Agents

BACKGROUND

Use of biologic drugs is approved for treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both in established disease and at the early stage of RA (ERA). Identification of ERA and an early therapeutic strategy would lead to greater clinical improvement. Only a few indirect comparisons of the efficacy of different biologic agents in established RA have been performed and, to date, no studies reporting direct comparisons have been performed in ERA.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare, by use of a mixed treatment comparison (MTC), the efficacy profiles of biologic agents in ERA.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed to identify results of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating biologic agents at licensed doses to treat patients affected by ERA. The primary end points for the analysis were the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses from baseline to various times of follow-up. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses. The MTC results are reported as the relative risk of a response for every single treatment coadministered with methotrexate, versus methotrexate plus placebo, which was used as a comparator in all RCTs.

RESULTS

Ten scientific papers met the study inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Data on the use of infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, abatacept, golimumab, and rituximab were included. No studies reported on the use of certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab in ERA. All biologic agents coadministered with methotrexate proved to be more efficacious than methotrexate plus placebo in inducing ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses. The biologic agent characterized by the highest probability of inducing an ACR70 response was adalimumab (33.28%). Etanercept was the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing ACR20 and ACR50 responses, in comparison with all other biologic agents, with probability rates of 62.95 and 37.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, adalimumab proved to be the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing an ACR70 response in patients affected by ERA, while etanercept was the biologic agent with the highest probability of inducing ACR50 and ACR20 responses.