Search

Background: Adjusted indirect comparisons (anchored via a common comparator) are an integral part of health technology assessment. These methods are challenged when differences between studies exist, including inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcome definitions, patient characteristics, as well as ensuring the choice of a common comparator., Objectives: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can address these challenges, but the appropriate application of MAICs is uncertain. Examples include whether to match between individual-level data and aggregate-level data studies separately for treatment arms or to combine the arms, which matching algorithm should be used, and whether to include the control treatment outcome and/or covariates present in individual-level data., Results: Results from seven matching approaches applied to a continuous outcome in six simulated scenarios demonstrated that when no effect modifiers were present, the matching methods were equivalent to the unmatched Bucher approach. When effect modifiers were present, matching methods (regardless of approach) outperformed the Bucher method. Matching on arms separately produced more precise estimates compared with matching on total moments, and for certain scenarios, matching including the control treatment outcome did not produce the expected effect size. The entropy balancing approach was used to determine whether there were any notable advantages over the method proposed by Signorovitch et al. When unmeasured effect modifiers were present, no approach was able to estimate the true treatment effect., Conclusions: Compared with the Bucher approach (no matching), the MAICs examined demonstrated more accurate estimates, but further research is required to understand these methods across an array of situations., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Most episodes of myocardial ischemia in patients with known coronary artery disease (CHD) are asymptomatic. Silent myocardial ischemia (SMI) is an important predictor of adverse outcome in patients with proven coronary artery disease. beta-blockers are effective in suppressing ischemia, and improve clinical outcome in patients with coronary artery disease. At present, it is common practice to stop treatment with beta-blockers in clinically asymptomatic patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or myocardial re-vascularization (PTCA/Stent), although the possible presence of SMI/inducible ischemia after myocardial re-vascularization is not known. We examined 56 asymptomatic CHD patients after coronary artery bypass graft (n=36), percutaneous coronary angioplasty PTCA/stent (n=15), or both (n=5); therapy with beta-blockers was stopped in all of them after myocardial revascularization. All these patients underwent a dobutamine stress echocardiography test (DSE test). The DSE test was proposed to these asymptomatic CHD patients to investigate the possible presence of SMI/inducible ischemia after myocardial re-vascularization. All patients had history of myocardial infarction or evidence of mildly impaired left ventricular function at rest as assessed by cardiac catheterization. Abnormal DSE studies occurred in eight of the 56 patients (14%; 95% C.I.: 6-26%). Therapeutic approaches specifically targeted at reducing total ischaemic burden include pharmacologic therapy and myocardial revascularization. On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that asymptomatic CHD patients after myocardial re-vascularization must be re-evaluated to rule out SMI/inducible ischemia that can be treated (e.g. with beta-blockers) reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Low-molecular-weight and unfractionated heparins are frequently used to treat venous thromboembolism, but it is not known whether they are equally effective in inhibiting in vivo generation of thrombin. In this multicenter trial, 1048 patients were randomized to intravenous unfractionated heparin (group A), twice daily low-molecular-weight heparin (reviparin) for 1 week (group B), or once daily reviparin for 4 weeks (group C). All patients received vitamin K antagonists. Blood samples withdrawn at the baseline and at weeks 1 and 3 were analyzed using markers of in vivo thrombin generation and other coagulation parameters. During the first 3 weeks symptomatic recurrent deep vein thrombosis-pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE) occurred in 17 (4.5%) of 375 patients in group A compared with 4 (1.0%) of 388 patients in group B, and 9 (2.4%) of 374 patients in group C. Forty percent of patients in group A, 53.4% in group B, and 53.5% in group C showed 30% or greater reduction in thrombus size assessed by venography. Patients in group B had significantly greater reduction in D-dimer, prothrombin fragments 1 and 2 (F1 + 2), endogenous thrombin potential (ETP), and thrombin-antithrombin (TAT) complexes compared to groups A and C. Greater release of tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) and reduction in levels of thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor (TAFI) and fibrinogen were significantly more pronounced in group C patients. Reviparin administered twice daily plus vitamin K antagonist is more effective in inhibiting in vivo thrombin generation compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin plus vitamin K antagonist, and reviparin once daily produced significantly higher TFPI release and greater reduction in TAFI and fibrinogen levels.