Editor’s highlights from the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research – February 2023
In this monthly column, I share some of my highlights from the latest issues of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, partner journal of The Evidence Base.
Welcome to this month’s round-up of my Editor’s picks from the February issue (Volume 12, Issue 2) of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. This month’s issue includes a Plain Language Summary of Publication article, alongside research, meta-analysis and systematic review content, spanning a variety of clinical areas including obesity, multiple sclerosis (MS) and cancer research.
Semaglutide treatment for obesity in teenagers: a plain language summary of the STEP TEENS research study
In their Plain Language Summary of Publication article, Weghuber et al. (Paracelsus Medical University, Austria) summarize the STEP TEENS research study, which was originally published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study looked at how well the medicine semaglutide works as a treatment for obesity in teenagers, examining the effect on BMI and weight loss, compared with placebo.
Cost–effectiveness of cladribine tablets and dimethyl fumarate in the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain
In Spain, 92 and 64% of MS patients have been found to experience fatigue and cognitive problems, in addition to the accumulation of physical disability. Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and cladribine tablets (CladT) are indicated for the treatment of adult relapsing remitting MS patients, but to date the cost–effectiveness of CladT versus DMF in Spain has not been evaluated. In their study, Ginestal et al. (Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Spain) examine this from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.
A network meta-analysis of immunotherapy-based treatments for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer
Head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer are currently lacking. Aggarwal et al. (Eli Lilly & Company, IN, USA) have conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments, including 19 studies that evaluated first-line-to-progression treatments and 19 that evaluated second-line treatments.
I hope you enjoy these articles, along with the rest of the content in the February issue. JCER welcomes presubmission enquiries, so do get in touch if you are interested in contributing to a future issue.
