Explore the vast range of titles available.

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of implementing iStent inject trabecular bypass stent (TBS) in conjunction with cataract surgery (Cat Sx) in patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma from a societal perspective in France. The secondary objective was to explore the economic impact of iStent inject TBS in patients who comply to different degrees with their anti-glaucoma medications. A previously published Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx versus Cat Sx alone over a lifetime time horizon in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in France. Progression was modeled by health states reflecting increasing stages of vision loss. Disease progression was obtained from the two-year randomized clinical trial assessing safety and effectiveness of both interventions. French specific health-state utilities and costs were obtained through a targeted literature review. Model structure and inputs were validated by French ophthalmologists. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The robustness of results was tested through sensitivity analyses. iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx reduced the number of medications needed and risk of blindness. Incremental cost and QALYs were €75 and 0.065 leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,154/QALY gained. ICER ranged from dominating for non-persistent patients to €31,127 patients fully persistent with their medication regime. Results from one-way sensitivity analysis had a maximum ICER of €29,000 when varying input parameters. iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx had an 86% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Results demonstrate that iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx is a cost-effective intervention for intraocular pressure reduction when compared to Cat Sx alone in France.

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of belimumab, a new biological treatment specifically developed for the treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), in the Italian setting. SLE is a chronic non-organ specific autoimmune disease characterized by a disregulation of the immune system that involves many organs and systems. A cost-effectiveness micro-simulation model with a lifetime horizon originally developed for the UK was adapted to the Italian setting. The analysis compared Standard of Care (SoC) alone vs belimumab plus SoC from a National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspective. Health-economic consequences of treatments and organ damage progression were calculated. When available, Italian data were used, otherwise UK costs were converted using Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs). Utility values were based on the EQ-5D™ assessments in the belimumab clinical trials (BLISS 52 and 76). Results were discounted with 3% for costs and effects. A maximum belimumab treatment duration of 6 years was assumed and wastage costs were considered. Cost per life year gained (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio, ICER) and cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) (Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio, ICUR) were €22,990 and €32,859, respectively. These values reduced to €20,119 and €28,754, respectively, when indirect costs were included. It may be concluded that in the Italian setting and according to the guidelines of the Italian Association of Health Economics (IAHE), belimumab was shown to be cost-effective, in terms of both ICER and ICUR, (€25-40,000/QALY).

Abstract BACKGROUND Mirikizumab, an interleukin (IL)-23p19 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy compared to placebo in clinical trials in adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Mirikizumab is expected to receive approval from the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration in 2023. Ustekinumab, an IL12/23 antagonist, is the preferred option in advanced therapy (AT; biologics, novel targeted systemics) experienced patients. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the cost effectiveness of mirikizumab compared to ustekinumab in the US among patients diagnosed with moderately to severely active UC who have been previously treated with AT. METHODS A Markov model was developed in MS Excel, comprising an AT layer, a second line (2L) AT layer, a conventional treatment (CT) layer, and a surgery layer. Following initial induction (2-week cycle length), responders transition to maintenance, while non-responders transition to induction in 2L, consisting of a weighted mix of ATs used in clinical practice according to market shares, or CT. During the maintenance phase (12-week cycle length), the AT layers include remission and non-remission response health states; patients who lose response transition to the 2L, CT or surgery layer, comprising surgery and post-surgery health states. Death is possible from all health states, as per US 2020 national life tables. Probabilities for remission, non-remission response at the end of induction, and transition probabilities during maintenance were derived from a network meta-analysis and published literature, as were health state utilities. The analysis from a US payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon considered only direct medical costs in 2023 US dollars (USD). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses were performed; scenario analyses explored the impact of re-induction, dose escalation, and including societal costs. RESULTS Mirikizumab resulted in lower total costs (USD 1,232,582) and more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.352) when compared to ustekinumab at standard doses (USD 1,279,620; 10.247 QALYs). Key drivers of cost savings (USD -47,038) and higher QALYs (0.105) for mirikizumab were assumptions on loss of response, the efficacy of mirikizumab at induction and the price of mirikizumab. The probability that mirikizumab is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of USD 100,000 per QALY gained was 74.9%. Adopting an escalated dose for ustekinumab and re-induction for mirikizumab considerably increased savings. CONCLUSIONS The analyses provided insights into the cost-effectiveness of mirikizumab compared to ustekinumab in the US for patients with moderately to severely active UC previously treated with AT. Results demonstrated that adopting mirikizumab can be considered cost-effective compared to ustekinumab, contributing to decision-making in healthcare management.

Background As schizophrenia patients are typically suspicious of, or are hostile to changes they may be reluctant to accept generic substitution, possibly affecting compliance. This may counteract drug costs savings due to less symptom control and increased hospitalization risk. Although compliance losses following generic substitution have not been quantified so far, one can estimate the possible health-economic consequences. The current study aims to do so by considering the case of risperidone in Germany. Methods An existing DES model was adapted to compare staying on branded risperidone with generic substitution. Differences include the probability of non-compliance and medication costs. Incremental probability of non-compliance after generic substitution was varied between 2.5% and 10%, while generic medication costs were assumed to be 40% lower. Effect of medication price was assessed as well as the effect of applying compliance losses to all treatment settings. The probability of staying on branded risperidone being cost-effective was calculated for various outcomes of a hypothetical study that would investigate non-compliance following generic substitution of risperidone. Results If the incremental probability of non-compliance after generic substitution is 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5% and 10% respectively, incremental effects of staying on branded risperidone are 0.004, 0.007, 0.011 and 0.015 Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Incremental costs are €757, €343, -€123 and -€554 respectively. Benefits of staying on branded risperidone include improved symptom control and fewer hospitalizations. If generic substitution results in a 5.2% higher probability of non-compliance, the model predicts staying on branded risperidone to be cost-effective (NICE threshold of ₤30,000 per QALY gained). Compliance losses of more than 6.9% makes branded risperidone the dominant alternative. Results are sensitive to the locations at which compliance loss is applied and the price of generic risperidone. The probability that staying on branded risperidone is cost-effective would increase with larger compliance differences and more patients included in the hypothetical study. Conclusion The model predicts that it is cost-effective to keep a patient with schizophrenia in Germany on branded risperidone instead of switching him/her to generic risperidone (assuming a 40% reduction in medication costs), if the incremental probability of becoming non-compliant after generic substitution exceeds 5.2%.

Patients with genotype-1 hepatitis C virus infection who have failed to respond to standard therapy or who relapse following treatment may be considered for an interferon-free regimen incorporating a nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor. Sustained virologic response (SVR) with these regimens is typically >90%, but this is reduced in patients with NS5A resistance. European Association for Study of the Liver guidelines recommend simeprevir + sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (SMV+SOF±R) for re-treating patients failing an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen. An alternative strategy would be to test for NS5A resistance prior to treatment, with therapy optimized based on the results. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. A Markov model was used to estimate disease progression for treatment-experienced genotype 1 patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis. Targeted treatment with either SMV+SOF±R or sofosbuvir + ledipasvir ± ribavirin (SOF+LDV±R) based on pretreatment NS5A resistance testing was compared to routine SOF+LDV±R without testing. Treatment duration was 12 or 24 weeks for patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F3/F4). SVR data for the treatment options were based on the results of published clinical trials. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Optimized treatment using NS5A resistance testing yielded 0.163 additional QALYs and increased costs of €2,789 per patient versus no testing. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €17,078/QALY. Sensitivity analysis identified the SVR attributable to each of the treatment regimens as the most sensitive determinant of ICER (range: €10,055/QALY-€43,501/QALY across plausible range). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY, the probability that NS5A-directed treatment will be cost-effective is 81.4%. Optimizing therapy with either SMV+SOF±R or SOF+LDV±R based on pretreatment NS5A resistance testing was cost-effective from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service, in treatment-experienced patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis.

The use of indirect comparisons to evaluate the relative effectiveness between two or more treatments is widespread in the literature and continues to grow each year. Appropriate methodologies will be essential for integrating data from various published clinical trials into a systematic framework as part of the increasing emphasis on comparative effectiveness research. This article provides a case study example for clinicians using the baseline study population characteristics and response rates of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors in imatinibresistant or imatinib-intolerant chronic myelogenous leukemia followed by a discussion of indirect comparison methods that are being increasingly implemented to address challenges with these types of comparisons.

ObjectiveTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of implementing iStent inject trabecular bypass stent (TBS) in conjunction with cataract surgery (Cat Sx) in patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma from a societal perspective in France. The secondary objective was to explore the economic impact of iStent inject TBS in patients who comply to different degrees with their anti-glaucoma medications.MethodsA previously published Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx versus Cat Sx alone over a lifetime time horizon in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in France. Progression was modeled by health states reflecting increasing stages of vision loss. Disease progression was obtained from the two-year randomized clinical trial assessing safety and effectiveness of both interventions. French specific health-state utilities and costs were obtained through a targeted literature review. Model structure and inputs were validated by French ophthalmologists. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The robustness of results was tested through sensitivity analyses.ResultsiStent inject TBS + Cat Sx reduced the number of medications needed and risk of blindness. Incremental cost and QALYs were €75 and 0.065 leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,154/QALY gained. ICER ranged from dominating for non-persistent patients to €31,127 patients fully persistent with their medication regime. Results from one-way sensitivity analysis had a maximum ICER of €29,000 when varying input parameters. iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx had an 86% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionResults demonstrate that iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx is a cost-effective intervention for intraocular pressure reduction when compared to Cat Sx alone in France.

Background Durable remission has been observed in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Consequently, hazard functions for overall survival (OS) are often complex, requiring the use of flexible methods for extrapolations. Objectives We aimed to retrospectively compare the predictive accuracy of different survival extrapolation methods and evaluate the validity of goodness-of-fit (GOF) criteria-based model selection for CAR T-cell therapies in R/R LBCL. Methods OS data were sourced from JULIET, ZUMA-1, and TRANSCEND NHL 001. Standard parametric, mixture cure, cubic spline, and mixture models were fit to multiple database locks (DBLs), with varying follow-up durations. GOF was assessed using the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion. Predictive accuracy was calculated as the mean absolute error (MAE) relative to OS observed in the most mature DBL. Results For all studies, mixture cure and cubic spline models provided the best predictive accuracy for the least mature DBL (MAE 0.013‒0.085 and 0.014‒0.128, respectively). The predictive accuracy of the standard parametric and mixture models showed larger variation (MAE 0.024‒0.162 and 0.013‒0.176, respectively). With increasing data maturity, the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models remained poor. Correlation between GOF criteria and predictive accuracy was low, particularly for the least mature DBL. Conclusions Our analyses demonstrated that mixture cure and cubic spline models provide the most accurate survival extrapolations of CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL. Furthermore, GOF should not be the only criteria used when selecting the optimal survival model.

Treatment with long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medication is an important element of relapse prevention in schizophrenia. Recently, the intramuscular once-monthly formulation of aripiprazole received marketing approval in Europe and the United States for schizophrenia. This study aimed to compare aripiprazole once-monthly with other LAI antipsychotics in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify relevant double-blind randomized clinical trials of LAIs conducted in the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, conference proceedings, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of key review articles were searched. The literature search covered studies dating from January 2002 to May 2013. Studies were required to have ≥24 weeks of follow-up. Patients had to be stable at randomization. Studies were not eligible for inclusion if efficacy of acute and maintenance phase treatment was not reported separately. Six trials were identified (0.5% of initially identified studies), allowing comparisons of aripiprazole once-monthly, risperidone LAI, paliperidone palmitate, olanzapine pamoate, haloperidol depot, and placebo. Data extracted included study details, study duration, the total number of patients in each treatment arm, efficacy, tolerability, and safety outcomes. The efficacy outcome contained the number of patients that experienced a relapse, tolerability outcomes included the number of patients that discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and that discontinued treatment due to reasons other than AEs (e.g., loss to follow-up). Safety outcomes included the incidence of clinically relevant weight gain and extrapyramidal symptoms. Data were analyzed by applying a mixed treatment comparison competing risks model (efficacy) and using binary models (safety). There was no statistically significant difference between any study outcome, including the risk of relapse, the risk of discontinuations, and safety outcomes. Aripiprazole once-monthly is similarly efficacious to other LAIs with relatively low rates of discontinuation due to AEs and due to reasons other than AEs than other LAIs.

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, aiming to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of the capsaicin 179-mg (8% weight for weight) cutaneous patch (capsaicin 8% patch) compared with oral, centrally acting agents (ie, pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline) in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN). A systematic search of EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials. Data from eligible studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, and analyses were based on aggregate-level data. Efficacy outcomes were the proportions of patients with ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in pain, and tolerability outcomes were somnolence, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, headache, fatigue, insomnia, and rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed by using a Bayesian NMA. Fixed and random effects models were estimated. Relative treatment effect was presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Sources of heterogeneity were assessed. The NMA included 25 randomized controlled trials. For ≥30% pain reduction, the capsaicin 8% patch was significantly more effective than placebo (OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.19–4.03]), exhibited a numerical advantage compared with pregabalin (OR, 1.83 [95% CI, 0.91–3.34]) and gabapentin (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.74–3.23]), and had similar efficacy compared with duloxetine (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.5–1.79]). The evidence available was not sufficient to assess the relative efficacy of amitriptyline. In the NMA for tolerability, the capsaicin 8% patch was only included for headache because the incidence was 0% for the other outcomes. Oral, centrally acting agents had a significantly elevated risk compared with placebo for somnolence (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), dizziness (pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine, and amitriptyline), nausea (duloxetine), diarrhea (duloxetine), fatigue (duloxetine), and discontinuation because of AEs (pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine). Compared with pregabalin and gabapentin, duloxetine had a significantly lower risk of dizziness but a significantly higher risk of nausea. This NMA suggests that the efficacy observed with the capsaicin 8% patch is similar to that observed with oral agents (ie, pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin) in patients with PDPN. The oral agents were associated with a significantly elevated risk of somnolence, dizziness, fatigue, and discontinuation because of AEs compared with placebo. The capsaicin 8% patch was as effective as oral centrally acting agents in these patients with PDPN but offers systemic tolerability benefits.