Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) has seen a substantial improvement over the last few years. Combination immunochemotherapy, such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), is now standard first-line therapy. However, the majority of patients relapse and require further therapy, and so new, effective, targeted therapies that improve remission rates, reduce relapses, and have fewer side effects, are required. The FLAIR trial will assess whether ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) is superior to FCR in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods/design FLAIR is a phase III, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group trial in patients with previously untreated CLL. A total of 754 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive standard therapy with FCR or IR. Participants randomised to FCR will receive a maximum of six 28-day treatment cycles. Participants randomised to IR will receive six 28-day cycles of rituximab, and ibrutinib taken daily for 6 years until minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity has been recorded for the same amount of time as it took to become MRD negative, or until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS according to the International Workshop on CLL (IWCLL) criteria. Secondary endpoints include: overall survival; proportion of participants with undetectable MRD; response to therapy by IWCLL criteria; safety and toxicity; health-related quality of life (QoL); and cost-effectiveness. Discussion The trial aims to provide evidence for the future first-line treatment of CLL patients by assessing whether IR is superior to FCR in terms of PFS, and whether toxicity rates are favourable. Trial registration ISRCTN01844152 . Registered on 8 August 2014, EudraCT number 2013-001944-76 . Registered on 26 April 2013.

Background and Objective The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data. Methods A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective. Results The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib. Conclusion When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.

Background Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are associated with considerable expense and mortality on healthcare systems. There is a need to provide evidence of both clinical efficacy and value for money with any health technology. The current pharmacoeconomic evaluation investigated the use of liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) and voriconazole for the empiric treatment of IFI in the Turkish setting. Methods Decision analytic modelling was used to create a pathway for patient treatment with a 5-point composite outcome measure. The data was obtained from a major non-inferiority multicentre randomised controlled study, with an expert panel of clinicians in Turkey providing transition probabilities and cost not available in the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the inputs from the clinical trial and the expert panel. Results As per the base case analysis, voriconazole was preferred by Turkish Lira (TL) 2,523 per patient treated and TL2,520 per surviving patient. LAmB was the preferred alternative by TL5,362 per successfully treated patient. Removing fever resolution as part of the composite outcome measure resulted in voriconazole being the preferred alternative per successfully treated patient. Univariate sensitivity analysis highlighted that increasing the duration of voriconazole by >1.2 days or decreasing LAmB by >1.0 days changes the result. Monte Carlo Simulation resulted in 69.4% of simulations favouring voriconazole per patient treated. Conclusion There is a strong likelihood that voriconazole is economically more favourable than LAmB in the empiric treatment of IFI in Turkey.

Abstract Background There is limited evidence regarding the economic burden, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) of patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and cancer of unknown primary (CUP) who initiated the FGFR inhibitor pemigatinib. Patients and Methods We used the Komodo Healthcare Map to identify patients with CCA who initiated pemigatinib between 4/17/2020 and 5/31/2023. Follow-up began at initiation and lasted ≥ 1 month. Outcomes included health care resource utilization (HCRU), costs, treatment patterns, and OS. Results Two hundred twenty-one patients were included: 78 patients (35.3%) with CUP (median follow-up, 5.9 months) and 143 patients (64.7%) without CUP (median follow-up, 7.3 months). Pemigatinib was similarly well-tolerated in CUP vs non-CUP. Discontinuation was observed in 43.6% vs 49.0% (P = .445). Medication possession ratio ≥ 0.80 was achieved by 71.6% vs 67.2% (P = .504). CUP was associated with significantly higher prevalence of metastatic disease (100.0% vs 63.6%), per patient per month (PPPM) ambulatory HCRU (8.2 vs 5.5), and ambulatory costs ($8584 vs $5308). Medical costs averaged $13 444 vs $9881 PPPM for CUP and non-CUP, respectively (P = .066). Median OS was significantly shorter with CUP (10.2 vs 30.7 months). Conclusion Although pemigatinib was similarly well-tolerated regardless of CUP status, patients with CUP incurred greater ambulatory burden and had poorer OS. Patients with CUP were more likely to have evidence of metastatic disease at pemigatinib initiation, which may help explain these results. With the advent of targeted treatments for gene-altered CCA, reflexive genomic testing should be encouraged for all patients with CUP. Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract

•The incidence of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in China is on the rise.•Zanubrutinib seems to be an attractive option for the treatment of untreated CLL.•The economic burden is substantial, and related research holds significant value.•To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the economic evaluation of zanubrutinib in patient with untreated CLL.•Data on the economic outcomes for untreated CLL are scarce.•At current price, zanubrutinib was less cost-effectiveness for patients with untreated CLL compared with bendamustine-rituximab in China. Zanubrutinib, a potent and specific irreversible Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has proven to be effective in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), whether used alone or in combination with other therapies. Here, we compared the cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab (R-bendamustine) to determine its effectiveness as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients with untreated CLL. The evaluation utilized a partitioned survival model, constructed using TreeAge Pro 2011 software, incorporating data from SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333). Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in trials using parametric survival modeling. In this analysis, the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and lifetime cost were calculated from the Chinese health care system perspective. Sensitivity analyses, including 1-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were carried out to explore the uncertainty of the modeling results. Additionally, several scenario analyses, including different zanubrutinib price calculation and 20-year time horizon, were evaluated. The findings revealed that zanubrutinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $58,258.18 per additional QALYs gained compared with bendamustine-rituximab, with zanubrutinib being cost-effective only if its price was reduced by more than 30%. Research indicated that zanubrutinib achieved at least a 3.70% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $38,223.34/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were sensitive to the utility of progressed disease. The study highlighted the importance of considering the cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib at its current price point for patients with untreated CLL in China, emphasizing the need for further assessment and potential pricing adjustments to enhance its economic viability in clinical practice.

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin for managing various lipid parameters in patients with hypercholesterolemia over a 1-year time horizon from a Canadian health care perspective. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for branded rosuvastatin compared with branded atorvastatin, generic simvastatin, and generic pravastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in terms of percent reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC)/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio, as well as in TC, HDL-C, triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein (Apo) B, the ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, and attainment of the Canadian LDL-C goal. The pharmacoeconomic model was constructed for a 1-year time horizon using efficacy data from a randomized, openlabel trial including 2268 adults and the wholesale acquisition costs of branded rosuvastatin and atorvastatin and generic simvastatin and pravastatin in British Columbia. Results: The most commonly prescribed doses of each of the 4 statins in British Columbia were as follows: rosuvastatin 10 mg (75.8% of all rosuvastatin doses); atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg (46.4% and 35.3%, respectively, of all atorvastatin doses); simvastatin 20 and 40 mg (42.5% and 31.8%, respectively, of all simvastatin doses); and pravastatin 20 and 40 mg (55.0% and 34.1%, respectively, of all pravastatin doses). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was dominant (ie, was more effective at a lower cost) relative to atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, simvastatin 20 and 40 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg in terms of reductions in LDL-C, TC/ HDL-C ratio, TC, ApoB, and ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, increases in HDL-C, and attainment of the LDL-C goal. Compared with pravastatin 20 mg, the ICER per percent reduction in LDL-C, TC/HDL-C ratio, TC, TG, ApoB, or ApoB/ApoA-I or increase in HDL-C ranged from $3.89 to $26.07; the value for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal was $419.75. When the statin doses were aggregated based on the Canadian statin-utilization pattern, rosuvastatin was dominant relative to atorvastatin on all effectiveness measures evaluated. When rosuvastatin was compared with generic simvastatin and pravastatin, the annual costs for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal were $144.51 and $373.91, respectively. Based on the sensitivity analysis, rosuvastatin was associated with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness compared with the other statins over a broad range of monetary values per unit of clinical effect. Conclusion: When percent changes in lipid parameters and rates of LDL-C goal attainment were considered in patients with hypercholesterolemia in British Columbia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more cost-effective than the most frequently used doses of atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg), generic simvastatin (20 and 40 mg), and generic pravastatin (20 and 40 mg).

In this work, we aimed to assess the impact of clazosentan on clinical labour time costs within Japan’s value-based healthcare system using time-driven activity-based costing. Time-driven activity-based costing was employed to analyse the labour time costs associated with preventing cerebral vasospasm following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. Time-driven activity-based costing simplifies cost analysis by utilising time as the primary cost driver. We compared two treatment approaches: conventional therapy with fasudil hydrochloride and postoperative therapy with clazosentan. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of physicians’ costs on the results. The use of clazosentan for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm significantly reduced human resource costs, particularly in cases where symptomatic vasospasm did not occur, yielding savings of approximately 51,343 yen. The greatest cost reductions were observed among nursing staff, with a 30% decrease in the absence of symptomatic vasospasm and a 15% reduction when symptomatic vasospasm was present. The cost reductions for physicians were comparatively smaller, particularly in cases where symptomatic vasospasm occurred. Sensitivity analyses indicated that clazosentan reduced overall costs by approximately 35,000–50,000 yen; however, costs increased in the presence of symptomatic vasospasm. Clazosentan for subarachnoid haemorrhage treatment significantly reduces human resource costs, especially in nursing staff. These findings support the potential of clazosentan for broader clinical use, given its cost-savings and clinical benefits in reducing cerebral vasospasm following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.

Medications are major cost drivers in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Recent analyses suggest that there is no added efficacy in continuing nor harm in stopping 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease escalated to biological therapies or tofacitinib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of discontinuing 5-ASA therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis on biological therapies or tofacitinib, compared with continuing 5-ASA therapy. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-ASA with biologic therapy and tofacitinib compared with the same treatment without 5-ASA. Our primary outcome was to determine whether biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy was cost-effective compared with biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA combination therapy using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Owing to the uncertainty surrounding outcome probabilities, probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 simulations were also performed. We conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA therapy compared with biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy, whereby vedolizumab was the first biologic used, followed by infliximab and finally tofacitinib. Our model shows that biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominates (cheaper and more effective) combination therapy of biologics/tofacitinib with 5-ASA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations resulted in biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominating 100% of the scenarios, with mean cost savings of $24,483.01 over 2 years. When vedolizumab was the first-line therapy in the sensitivity analysis, biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy continued to dominate the combination of 5-ASA and biologic/tofacitinib therapy. This analysis in patients with ulcerative colitis who require treatment with biologics or tofacitinib demonstrates that continuing 5-ASA therapy is not a cost-effective strategy. Discontinuation of 5-ASA therapy in these patients is safe and less expensive and should be recommended.

Second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors, including ceritinib, brigatinib, and alectinib, have improved survival in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but are not included in Thailand’s National List of Essential Medicines. This study assessed the cost-utility and budget impact of second-generation ALK inhibitors compared to chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC in Thailand. A Markov model was employed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a societal perspective. Cost data were derived from the Thai Health Technology Assessment Database, published literature, and clinical guidelines. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using EQ-5D-5L, and transitional probabilities were extracted from published studies. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and sensitivity analyses were conducted. A five-year budget impact analysis (BIA) was performed from the payer’s perspective. Our analysis shows that chemotherapy remained the most cost-effective option. Although all ALK inhibitors yielded higher QALYs, the lifetime costs associated with their use cannot be offset by the additional outcomes gained. This was primarily due to Thailand’s willingness-to-pay threshold, which was lower than the ICERs of all ALK inhibitors. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that none of the ALK inhibitors were cost-effective compared to chemotherapy. The five-year BIA estimated the budget impact of ceritinib (450 mg/day, 750 mg/day), alectinib (600 mg/day, 1,200 mg/day), and brigatinib at 2,345 (63.81), 3,703 (100.76), 9,830 (267.49), 19,328 (525.92), and 9,502 (258.56) million THB (USD), respectively.