Dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy may benefit patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. The efficacy and safety of US-approved LAMA/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combinations versus tiotropium (TIO), a LAMA, were assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis (GSK: 206938), conducted in MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, and EMBASE following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified randomized clinical trials (>8 weeks) in moderate-to-severe COPD (per Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines), receiving LAMA/LABA or TIO. Endpoints: difference in change from baseline in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]; trough, peak, area under the curve 0–3 h post-dose (AUC0–3), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responder rate (≥4-unit improvement), SGRQ total score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks. Safety was also assessed. From 5683 citations, the meta-analysis included eight clinical trials. LAMA/LABA significantly improved FEV1 trough (Week 12: 63.0 mL, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 39.2, 86.8; Week 24: 66.1 mL, 95% CI: 40.0, 92.3), peak (Week 12: 91.5 mL, 95% CI: 70.5, 112.4; Week 24: 92.4 mL, 95% CI: 72.9, 111.9), AUC0–3 (Week 12: 126.8 mL, 95% CI: 108.1, 145.4), SGRQ responder rate at Week 12 (risk ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.28), mean SGRQ total score (Week 12: −1.87, 95% CI: −2.72, −1.02; Week 24: −1.05, 95% CI: −2.02, −0.09), and rescue medication use (Week 24: −0.47 puffs/day, 95% CI: −0.64, −0.30) versus TIO (all p ≤ 0.03). The SGRQ responder rate at 24 weeks and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies improved lung function, SGR,Q and rescue medication use versus TIO, without compromising safety.

Background Effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background methotrexate) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept with adalimumab. A post hoc analysis showed improved efficacy for abatacept in patients with versus without seropositive, erosive early RA. Objective The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost per response (ACR20/50/70/90 and HAQ-DI) and patient in remission (DAS28-CRP, CDAI, and SDAI) for abatacept relative to adalimumab, in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada. Methods A previously published model was used to compare abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients over 2 years. Clinical inputs were updated based on two subpopulations from the AMPLE trial. Cohort 1 included patients with early RA (disease duration ≤ 6 months), RF and/or ACPA seropositivity, and > 1 radiographic erosion. Cohort 2 included patients with RA in whom at least one of these criteria was absent. Results For cohort 1, all incremental costs per additional health gain (patient response or patient in remission) favoured abatacept in all countries, except for DAS28-CRP remission in Canada. Cost savings versus adalimumab were greater when more stringent response criteria were applied and also in cohort 1 patient (versus cohort 2 patients). Conclusion The cost per responder and patient in remission favoured abatacept in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA across all the countries. In this patient population, the use of abatacept instead of adalimumab can lead to lower costs in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract