Both severe and non-severe hypoglycemia incur substantial healthcare costs. Failure to account for these costs may under-estimate the value of management strategies that minimize hypoglycemia risk.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of carboplatin-versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis by the Cochrane group (2013) was updated. Systematic searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings were conducted to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013-January 2018 which compared carboplatin and cisplatin combined with: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, irinotecan, or pemetrexed. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), one-year OS, objective response rate (ORR), grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities, and HRQoL. Results: Twelve RCTs (2,048 patients) were identified from 4,139 records for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96, 1.21) and one-year OS (relative risk [RR]: 0.97, CI: 0.89, 1.07) between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A small effect on ORR favouring cisplatin was detected (RR = 0.88; CI: 0.78, 0.99). Differences in drug-related toxicities were observed between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy for thrombocytopenia, anaemia, neurotoxicity, and the risk of nausea/vomiting. Three RCTs comparing HRQoL between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy found no significant differences. Conclusions: This updated evidence base corroborates findings of previous meta-analyses showing no difference in OS between carboplatin-and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, despite a slight benefit in ORR for cisplatin. Toxicity profiles should be considered alongside patients' comorbidities in the choice of therapy.

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to evaluate real-world treatment patterns of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in Germany (GE), the United Kingdom (UK), France (FR), the Netherlands (NE), Belgium (BE), and Sweden (SE).MethodsAdult T2D patients initiating exenatide twice daily (exBID), liraglutide once daily (LIRA) or exenatide once weekly (exQW) were identified using the IMS LifeLink™ (IMS Health, Danbury, CT, USA): Electronic Medical Records (EMR; GE/UK/FR) and IMS LifeLink™: longitudinal prescriptions (LRx; NE/BE/GE/UK) databases, and national health register data (SE), between 2010 and 2012. Therapy initiation date was termed ‘index date’. Eligible patients had ≥180-day pre- and variable follow-up (minimum ≥360-day post-index exBID and LIRA, ≥180-day post-index exQW). Treatment modification and persistence were evaluated over 180 days. Kaplan–Meier (KM) survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models (PHMs; EMR databases only) evaluated stopping of the index therapy (measured as first of discontinuation or switch).Results30,206 exBID, 5,401 exQW, and 52,155 LIRA patients were included in the analysis (46.0–66.9% male; mean age range 55.4–59.3 years). Mean follow-up was 20.3–27.4 months for exBID and LIRA, and 7.6–13.9 months for exQW. Across the databases, the proportion experiencing a treatment modification at 180 days was highest among exBID (37.6–81.7%) compared to LIRA (36.8–56.6%) and exQW (32.3–47.7%). The proportion persistent at 180 days was lowest among exBID patients (46.8–73.5%) compared to LIRA (50.6–80.1%) or exQW (57.5–74.6%). In the KM analyses, LIRA patients had a lower proportion stopping therapy at all time points compared to exBID patients, across the databases. In the Cox PHMs, LIRA was associated with a significantly lower risk of stopping compared to exBID; in GE, exQW was associated with a lower risk compared to exBID and LIRA.ConclusionTreatment patterns varied among GLP-1 RA patients, with persistence highest among either LIRA or exQW across countries, and lowest among exBID. Longer-term data would be useful, particularly given limited exQW follow-up due to more recent launch.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-014-0087-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposePatients with severe COPD are at high risk of experiencing disease exacerbations, which require additional treatment and are associated with elevated mortality and increased risk of future exacerbations. Some patients continue to experience exacerbations despite receiving triple inhaled therapy (ICS plus LAMA plus LABA). Roflumilast is recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease as add-on treatment to triple inhaled therapy for these patients. This cost-effectiveness analysis compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years for roflumilast plus triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy alone, using data from the REACT and RE2SPOND trials.Patients and methodsPatients included in the analysis had severe to very severe COPD, FEV1 <50% predicted, symptoms of chronic bronchitis and ≥2 exacerbations per year. Our model was adapted from a previously published and validated model, and the analyses conducted from a UK National Health Service perspective. A scenario analysis considered a subset of patients who had experienced at least one COPD-related hospitalization within the previous year.ResultsRoflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was associated with non-significant reductions in rates of both moderate and severe exacerbations compared with triple inhaled therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was £24,976. In patients who had experienced previous hospitalization, roflumilast was associated with a non-significant reduction in the rate of moderate exacerbations, and a statistically significant reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations. The ICER for roflumilast in this population was £7,087.ConclusionsRoflumilast is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe or very severe COPD, chronic bronchitis, and a history of exacerbations. The availability of roflumilast as add-on treatment addresses an important unmet need in this patient population.

No abstract