Six-Month Use of Droxidopa for Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension.

BACKGROUND: Droxidopa is approved for adult patients with symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH); there is limited information regarding effects on symptoms, outcomes, and quality of life (QOL) beyond two weeks of treatment. OBJECTIVE: Examine the real-world experience of patients taking droxidopa after six months of treatment. METHODS: This non-interventional, US-based, prospective cohort study utilized a pharmacy hub, identifying patients who recently started droxidopa for nOH treatment. Questionnaires for fall frequency and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were completed at baseline and one, three, and six months following droxidopa initiation. RESULTS: 179 enrolled patients completed baseline surveys. Droxidopa continuation rates were high at months one, three, and six (87%, 79%, and 75%, respectively). From baseline to month one, there was significant reduction in the proportion of patients reporting falling at least once (54.1% vs. 43.0%; P = 0.0039), with similar observations at month three (52.9% vs. 44.5%; P = 0.0588) and month six (51.4% vs. 40.0%; P = 0.0339). Significant improvements from baseline to month one were observed and maintained at months three and six for most PROs, including the Orthostatic Hypotension Symptom Assessment Item 1, Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, Sheehan Disability Scale, Physical Component of the 8-item Short-Form Health Survey, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. CONCLUSIONS: In this non-interventional prospective study, fewer nOH patients reported falling after one, three, and six months of droxidopa treatment. Further, improvements reported in nOH symptoms, physical function, and QOL measures were maintained for six months following treatment initiation. Results from randomized clinical trials are required to validate the findings.

Estimating the Economic Impact of Adding Panobinostat to a U.S. Formulary for Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Budget Impact and Cost-Benefit Model.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is an incurable B-cell malignancy with a natural history that involves alternating periods of remission and subsequent relapse. For relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), the typical patient currently receives more lines of therapy than has been feasible in the past, translating into longer progression-free survival (PFS). Consequently, cost issues have become more prominent because patients may be offered newer and more expensive therapies during a more prolonged overall treatment course. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of adding panobinostat to a U.S. health plan formulary as a treatment option with bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with RRMM previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), using a budget impact and cost-benefit model. METHODS: Total costs of commonly used salvage therapy regimens were combined with market share data and population prevalence estimates of RRMM to yield the total cost of treatment, from the perspective of a U.S. third-party payer (commercial or Medicare) with a time horizon of 1 year. Comparator treatment regimens included bortezomib-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-dexamethasone, lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone, carfilzomib monotherapy, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Costs (2015 U.S. dollars) included drug costs for oral oncology agents, medical and administration costs for injectable oncology agents, costs of adverse event (AE) prophylaxis and monitoring, and costs of grade 3/4 AEs. RESULTS: In a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, the annual number of RRMM patients with previous PI and IMiD treatments was estimated at 16 and 118 for a commercial and Medicare plan, respectively. Introduction of panobinostat as part of the panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone regimen was not expected to result in a substantial budget impact to either commercial or Medicare plans, with an incremental cost < $0.01 per member per month. Panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had a low cost per treated patient per month without progression, owing to the minimal increase in expenditure over existing bortezomib-based regimens and long median PFS, compared with median duration of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adding panobinostat to a plan formulary as a treatment option is expected to be cost neutral (and potentially cost saving in the context of new and more expensive treatment regimens). With a low cost per month without progression, panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone represents good value for the money. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was sponsored by Novartis, East Hanover, New Jersey. Bloudek and Kish are employees of Xcenda, a consulting company contracted by Novartis to conduct this analysis. Roy, Globe, and Kuriakose are employees of Novartis. Siegel is on the advisory boards and speaker's bureau of Celgene, Onyx/Amgen, Millennium/Takeda, and Novartis and is on the advisory boards of Merck. Jagannath is a consultant to Sanofi, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Celgene. Orloski is a contractor to Xcenda and provided medical writing support, which was funded by Novartis. Study design and concept were contributed by Bloudek, Roy, and Kish, assisted by Globe. Bloukek took the lead in data collection, along with Kish, and data interpretation was performed by Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, and Kuriakose. The manuscript was written primarily by Orloski, along with Roy and Kish, and revised by Roy, along with Siegal, Jagannath, Globe, Orloski, and Kuriakose.

Prediabetes: the importance of early identification and intervention.

Prediabetes is a state of abnormal glucose homeostasis characterized by the presence of impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or both. Individuals with prediabetes are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, compared with individuals with normal glucose values (normal fasting plasma glucose, < 100 mg/dL [5.6 mmol/L]). The increased risk for cardiovascular disease in prediabetes is multifactorial, with etiologies including insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, hypertension, systemic inflammation, and oxidative stress. The preferred treatment is intensive lifestyle management and aggressive pharmacologic therapies directed toward individual coronary heart disease risk factors. The use of antihyperglycemic agents in this setting is a topic of intense debate. This review discusses the pathophysiology of prediabetes and its clinical implications, highlighting the importance of early identification and intervention.