No abstract

AimTo assess the potential risk of tuberculosis (TB) in patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) agents in Asia.MethodsAbsolute risk increase (ARI) of TB was estimated for three widely used anti-TNF-α therapies using published standardized incidence ratios (SIR) from the French Research Axed on Tolerance of bIOtherapies registry and incidence (absolute risk [AR]) of TB in Asia. Assuming an association of increased TB risk with anti-TNF-α therapy and country TB AR (incidence), the ARI of TB by country was calculated by multiplying the SIR of the anti-TNF-α therapy by the country's TB AR. The numbers needed to harm (NNH) for each anti-TNF-α agent and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to reduce one TB event using etanercept therapy instead of adalimumab or infliximab were also calculated for each country.ResultsThe ARI of TB with anti-TNF-α therapies in Asian countries is substantially higher than Western Europe and North America and the difference between etanercept versus the monoclonal antibodies becomes more evident. The NNH for Asian countries ranged from 8 to 163 for adalimumab, 126 to 2646 for etanercept and 12 to 256 for infliximab. The NNT to reduce one TB event using etanercept instead of adalimumab therapy ranged from 8 to 173, and using etanercept instead of infliximab therapy the NNT ranged from 13 to 283.ConclusionHigher numbers of patients are at risk of developing TB with anti-TNF-α therapy in Asia compared with Western Europe and North America. The relative lower risk of TB with etanercept may be particularly relevant for Asia, an endemic area for TB.

Fistulas are often a difficult and costly complication of CD. This study determined that patients with fistulizing CD have higher healthcare costs and resource consumption than patients without fistula. Use of therapies that heal fistulas may help deter some of the high costs and intensive resource utilization found in this study. Economic analyses need to account for these issues when assessing the cost-effectiveness of therapies targeting fistulizing disease.

China faces multiple obstacles in preparing to care for its fast-growing dementia population. Better understanding of patients and caregivers may mitigate these challenges by improving awareness and education.

Background: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Methods: Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator.Results: This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2-4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2-4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0. 45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2-4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim. Conclusions: Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.