To assess the clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) versus placebo on nasal symptoms and safety in children with perennial allergic rhinitis (AR).

A comprehensive review was conducted with data obtained from Medline and Embase databases up to April 2023. The population of interest was patients aged 2–12 years with perennial AR. The selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing FFNS with placebo. Outcomes of interest included the reflective total nasal symptoms scores (rTNSS) and safety. To assess the minimal clinically important difference for rTNSS, the Cohen’s guideline was used. If the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) exceeded the threshold of −0.20, effects were considered clinically significant.

Three RCTs (959 pediatric patients) were selected. One study evaluated the short-term use of FFNS, another evaluated the long-term use of FFNS, and another evaluated both the short-term and long-term use of FFNS. FFNS produced a statistically significant reduction over placebo in rTNSS (SMD −0.18; 95 percent CI −0.35 to −0.01, p = 0.03) in long-term treatment studies, but not in short-term treatment studies. However, since the mean reduction did not reach the minimum clinically important difference (SMD −0.20), these results were considered clinically not relevant. Safety outcomes with FFNS were similar to placebo.

The currently available evidence suggests that FFNS, 110 μg once daily, compared to placebo, does not produce a meaningful clinical effect on nasal symptom in children with perennial AR.

Although previous studies suggest that fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) is superior to placebo in reducing symptoms in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis (AR), there is still uncertainty about its clinical effectiveness in the pediatric population. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of FFNS, compared with placebo, in reducing nasal symptoms in children with perennial AR.

A systematic review was conducted of studies identified from the MEDLINE and Embase databases that were published up to January 2021. The population of interest was patients aged 2 to 12 years with perennial AR. Included studies were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FFNS (110 μg once daily) with placebo. The outcomes of interest included the reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) and safety. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4. The Cohen’s guideline was used to assess the minimum clinically important difference for rTNSS; that is, if the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) exceed -0.5, the treatment effect was considered clinically significant.

Three RCTs (959 pediatric patients) were included. One study evaluated the short-term use of FFNS, one evaluated the long-term use of FFNS, and the third evaluated both the short- and long-term use of FFNS. FFNS produced a statistically significant reduction in rTNSS (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.63, -0.08; p<0.001) relative to placebo in the long-term treatment studies, but not in the short-term studies. However, since the mean reduction did not reach the minimum clinically important difference (SMD -0.5), these results were not considered clinically relevant. The safety outcomes for FFNS were similar to placebo.

The currently available evidence suggests that FFNS does not produce a meaningful clinical effect on nasal symptoms in children with perennial AR, compared with placebo. In the past decade, however, some guidelines have unequivocally endorsed this treatment.

In the field of drug development and effectiveness evaluation, the use of surrogate endpoints is acceptable if they reliably predict a positive effect on clinical outcomes such as mortality or morbidity. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is a widely used surrogate endpoint in phase 3 and 4 clinical trials evaluating drugs in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). The objective of this study was to investigate whether HbA1c is a valid surrogate endpoint for evaluating the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in DM trials.

We conducted a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of a treatment on levels of HbA1c and clinical outcomes in patients with DM. The association between the effects of treatment on HbA1c levels and clinical outcomes was then investigated using regression analysis at the trial level. The correlation coefficients (R) were interpreted using the cut-off points suggested by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). HbA1c was considered a valid surrogate endpoint if it demonstrated a strong association with clinical outcomes (i.e., the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval [CI] of R≥ 0.85).

Nineteen phase 3 or 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. All studies included adults with type 2 DM. None of the associations evaluated was strong enough to validate HbA1c as a surrogate endpoint for any clinical outcome: mortality (R 0.34, 95% CI: -0.14, 0.69); myocardial infarction (R 0.20, 95% CI: -0.30, 0.61); heart failure (R 0.08, 95% CI: -0.40, 0.53); kidney injury (R -0.04, 95% CI: -0.52, 0.47); and stroke (R 0.81, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.93).

The evidence from multiple placebo-controlled RCTs of antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 DM suggests that a reduction in levels of HbA1c does not meet the IQWiG criteria for a valid surrogate endpoint. Consequently, the risk-benefit ratio of antihyperglycemic drugs in terms of patient relevant clinical outcomes, regardless of their hypoglycemic effect, should be the focus of therapeutic, regulatory, and reimbursement decisions.

The objective of this study was to investigate whether glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a valid surrogate for evaluating the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in diabetes mellitus (DM) trials.

We conducted a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of a treatment on HbA1c (mean difference between groups) and clinical outcomes (relative risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and/or kidney injury) in patients with DM. Then, we investigated the association between treatment effects on HbA1c and clinical outcomes using regression analysis at the trial level. Lastly, we interpreted the correlation coefficients (R) using the cut-off points suggested by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG). HbA1c was considered a valid surrogate if it demonstrated a strong association: lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (95 percent CI) of R greater than or equal to .85.

Nineteen RCTs were identified. All studies included adults with type 2 DM. None of the associations evaluated was strong enough to validate HbA1c as a surrogate for any clinical outcome: mortality (R = .34; 95 percent CI −.14 to .69), myocardial infarction (R = .20; −.30 to .61), heart failure (R = .08; −.40 to .53), kidney injury (R = −.04; −.52 to .47), and stroke (R = .81; .54 to .93).

The evidence from multiple placebo-controlled RCTs does not support the use of HbA1c as a surrogate to measure the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in DM studies.

In the absence of direct evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), real-world evidence (RWE) can play an important role in healthcare decision making. As part of a health technology assessment, we assessed the comparative risk of tuberculosis (TB) associated with using infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

We performed a systematic literature search using the PubMed database to identify relevant meta-analyses.

We located two relevant meta-analyses: one based on RCTs and one based on observational studies. Evidence from seven RCTs on infliximab (2,686 patients; 12 TB events) and two RCTs on etanercept (663 patients; 2 TB events) suggested no significant differences in the risk of TB between the two treatments, compared with placebo. In contrast, evidence from ten observational studies that directly compared the two treatments (443,941 patients; 253 TB events) indicated a significantly higher risk of TB with infliximab than with etanercept.

Although RWE is prone to confounding and bias, in this case it had the advantage of providing direct comparisons with larger sample sizes and longer follow up than evidence from RCTs. As a result, RWE was used to inform decision making on the risk of TB with infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.