A systematic literature review of disease burden and clinical efficacy for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rapidly progressive hematological malignancy that is difficult to cure. The prognosis is poor and treatment options are limited in case of relapse. A comprehensive assessment of current disease burden and the clinical efficacy of non-intensive therapies in this population are lacking. We conducted two systematic literature reviews (SLRs). The first SLR (disease burden) included observational studies reporting the incidence and economic and humanistic burden of relapsed/refractory (RR) AML. The second SLR (clinical efficacy) included clinical trials (phase II or later) reporting remission rates (complete remission [CR] or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery [CRi]) and median overall survival (mOS) in patients with RR AML or patients with de novo AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. For both SLRs, MEDLINE®/Embase® were searched from January 1, 2008 to January 31, 2020. Clinical trial registries were also searched for the clinical efficacy SLR. After screening, two independent reviewers determined the eligibility for inclusion in the SLRs based on full-text articles. The disease burden SLR identified 130 observational studies. The median cumulative incidence of relapse was 29.4% after stem cell transplant and 46.8% after induction chemotherapy. Total per-patient-per-month costs were $28,148-$29,322; costs and health care resource use were typically higher for RR versus non-RR patients. Patients with RR AML had worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores than patients with de novo AML across multiple instruments, and lower health utility values versus other AML health states (i.e. newly diagnosed, remission, consolidation, and maintenance therapy). The clinical efficacy SLR identified 50 trials (66 total trial arms). CR/CRi rates and mOS have remained relatively stable and low over the last 2 decades. Across all arms, the median rate of CR/CRi was 18.3% and mOS was 6.2 months. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of patients with AML will develop RR AML, which is associated with significant humanistic and economic burden. Existing treatments offer limited efficacy, highlighting the need for more effective non-intensive treatment options.

Comparability of European League Against Rheumatology-Recommended Pharmacological Treatments of Oral Ulcers Associated with Behçet's Disease: A Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Oral ulcers are the cardinal manifestation in Behçet's disease (BD). The 2018 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations describe treatments for BD-associated oral ulcers with mucocutaneous involvement; however, little comparative effectiveness information for these agents is available. In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) could provide useful evidence regarding comparative effectiveness of BD treatments. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative systematic literature review (SLR) and similarity assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the oral ulcer-related efficacy outcomes of EULAR-recommended treatments for BD-associated oral ulcers to determine the feasibility of an ITC. METHODS: An SLR was performed to identify relevant RCTs indexed in MEDLINE/Embase before May 29, 2019. RCT similarities for the ITC were assessed based on a step-wise process recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RESULTS: In total, 317 articles were identified, of which 14 RCTs, reflecting 11 EULAR-recommended treatments, were evaluated in a similarity assessment. Number of oral ulcers, resolution of oral ulcers, and healing time for oral ulcers were identified as the possible oral ulcer-related outcomes. After completing the similarity assessment of these outcomes, it was determined that a robust ITC was infeasible for the three oral ulcer-related outcomes due to heterogeneity in outcomes reporting, study design, and/or patient characteristics. More broadly, the results underscore the need for and consistent use of standardized measures for oral ulcer outcomes to facilitate comparative research. CONCLUSION: In the absence of head-to-head RCTs and infeasibility of quantitative ITC, comparative assessments for BD-associated oral ulcers are limited, including comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evaluations. Healthcare decision-makers must continue to base treatment decisions on the extent and strength of available evidence (eg, robust RCTs), clinical guidelines, real-world experience, and patient considerations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of voriconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B for invasive fungal infections following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFIs), which are associated with high mortality and economic burden. The cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of IFIs in alloHSCT recipients in Mexico has not yet been assessed. METHODS: This analysis modeled a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients to estimate costs and outcomes for patients receiving prophylaxis for IFIs following alloHSCT, from the perspective of institutional payers in Mexico. The main prophylaxis agents currently used in Mexican clinical practice are voriconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B (AmB). The model accounted for event rates of IFIs during each treatment, assuming IFI causality due to invasive aspergillosis, invasive candidiasis, or other IFIs, and that the outcome for patients during follow-up was IFI-related death, death from other causes, or survival. Clinical efficacies were obtained from published literature; costs were based on local sources. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Univariate (assessing the impact of varying each model parameter) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Voriconazole was associated with the lowest number of breakthrough IFIs, IFI-related deaths, and total number of deaths. Total costs were lower for fluconazole (Mexican pesos [MXN] 72,944; US $4,079) than voriconazole (MXN 101,413; US $5,671) or AmB (MXN 110,529; US $6,180). Voriconazole had better clinical outcomes and lower costs than AmB and could be considered cost-effective compared with fluconazole in line with the local ICER threshold. Drug costs, monitoring costs, and duration of prophylaxis were most sensitive to variation from univariate sensitivity analysis. Findings from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were consistent with the base-case results. CONCLUSION: Voriconazole had the most favorable clinical outcomes, but overall prophylaxis costs were higher than with fluconazole. Overall, based on local ICER thresholds (MXN 184,665; US $10,326), voriconazole was considered a cost-effective option for prophylaxis of IFI in Mexico.

Post-gemcitabine therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer - A comparative review of randomized trials evaluating oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-containing regimens.

A systematic review and critical evaluation of randomized trial evidence for oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-containing regimens in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine has not yet been published. We conducted a comparative systematic review of randomized trials evaluating oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine to assess trial similarity and the feasibility of performing an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Studies were identified through PubMed and key oncology conference abstracts. The following trials met our criteria: NAPOLI-1 (nanoliposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] or nal-IRI+5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/leucovorin [LV] vs 5-FU/LV), CONKO-003 (oxaliplatin+5-FU/LV [OFF] vs 5-FU/LV), PANCREOX (oxaliplatin+5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX6] vs 5-FU/LV), and Yoo et al. (2009) (irinotecan+5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI3] vs mFOLFOX). Fundamental differences were identified in study design (i.e., number of study sites, number of countries), patient (i.e., locally advanced vs metastatic disease, stratification variables, prior and subsequent treatments) and treatment (i.e., regimens, dose intensity) characteristics, and primary and secondary outcomes (i.e., primary vs secondary outcomes, overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS]) among the 4 included trials. Our comparative review demonstrated significant dissimilarity across trials, which precluded conducting an ITC. In the absence of head-to-head nal-IRI- and/or oxaliplatin-based therapy trials, clinicians are advised to interpret these studies separately within the context of their individual patient population.

Economic and Humanistic Burden of Dry Eye Disease in Europe, North America, and Asia: A Systematic Literature Review.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a chronic and progressive multifactorial disorder of the tears and ocular surface, which results in symptoms of discomfort and visual disturbance. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the burden of DED and its components from an economic and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) perspective, and to compare the evidence across France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, USA, Japan, and China. PubMed, Embase, and six other resources were searched for literature published from January 1998 to July 2013. Of 76 titles/abstracts reviewed on the economic burden of DED and 263 on the HRQoL burden, 12 and 20 articles, respectively, were included in the review. The available literature suggests that DED has a substantial economic burden, with indirect costs making up the largest proportion of the overall cost due to a substantial loss of work productivity. In addition, DED has a substantial negative impact on physical, and potentially psychological, function and HRQoL across the countries examined. A number of studies also indicated that HRQoL burden increases with the severity of disease. Additional data are needed, particularly in Asia, in order to gain a better understanding of the burden of DED and help inform future health care resource utilization.

Rising United States Hospital Admissions for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Recent Trends and Economic Impact.

BACKGROUND: The number of ambulatory patients seeking treatment for skin and skin structure infections (SSSI) are increasing. The objective of this study is to determine recent trends in hospital admissions and healthcare resource utilization and identify covariates associated with hospital costs and mortality for hospitalized adult patients with a primary SSSI diagnosis in the United States. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis (years 2005-2011) of data from the US Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. Recent trends, patient characteristics, and healthcare resource utilization for patients hospitalized with a primary SSSI diagnosis were evaluated. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted to assess patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1.8% of hospital admissions for the years 2005 through 2011 were for adult patients with a SSSI primary diagnosis. SSSI-related hospital admissions significantly changed during the study period (P < .001 for trend) ranging from 1.6% (in 2005) to 2.0% (in 2011). Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) decreased from 5.4 days in the year 2005 to 5.0 days in the year 2011 (overall change, P < .001) with no change in hospital costs. Patients with postoperative wound infections had the longest hospital stays (adjusted mean, 5.81 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), 5.80-5.83) and highest total costs (adjusted mean, $9388; 95% CI, $9366-$9410). Year of hospital admission was strongly associated with mortality; infection type, all patient refined diagnosis related group severity of illness level, and LOS were strongly associated with hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital admissions for adult patients in the United States with a SSSI primary diagnosis continue to increase. Decreasing hospital inpatient LOS and mortality rate may be due to improved early treatment. Future research should focus on identifying alternative treatment processes for patients with SSSI that could shift management from inpatient to outpatient treatment settings.

Cost efficiency of canagliflozin versus sitagliptin for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 1-year clinical outcomes and cost efficiency of treating adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with canagliflozin (300 mg/day) or sitagliptin (100 mg/day), both added on a background of metformin and sulfonylurea. STUDY DESIGN: An economic model integrated data from an active-controlled, randomized trial, claims database analyses, and published literature. METHODS: The model adopted a US managed care payer perspective and included the clinical and economic impact of achieving specific clinical quality goals. The model was run separately for 2 single clinical quality metrics, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) < 7% (used as base case) or < 8%, and 4 composite metrics (A1C < 7% or < 8% combined with body mass index < 30 kg/m2 and blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 100 mg/dL). Cost savings of achieving versus not achieving metrics were derived from a claims database analysis. Drug and adverse event costs were included. RESULTS: In the base case, compared with sitagliptin 100 mg, treatment with canagliflozin 300 mg resulted in $215 in annual cost savings and 12.3 absolute percentage points more patients achieving goal. Similar findings were found across all other quality metrics (difference in proportion achieving goal ranging from 6.7% to 19.0% and annual savings ranging from $1 to $669). Canagliflozin remained cost saving versus sitagliptin in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin 300 mg may represent a cost-efficient T2DM treatment option versus sitagliptin 100 mg for patients on metformin plus sulfonylurea due to lower overall costs and better achievement of A1C and quality composite goals.

An economic model to compare linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Across Europe, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is considered to be the primary cause of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). In Germany alone, approximately 14,000 cases of MRSA-associated NP occur annually, which may have a significant impact on health care resource use and associated economic costs. The objective of this study was to investigate the economic impact of linezolid compared with that of vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with MRSA-confirmed NP in the German health care system. METHODS: A 4-week decision tree model incorporated published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use, and costs (2012 euros) was constructed. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed NP was 10 days. Treatment success (survival), failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events, and mortality were possible outcomes that could impact costs. Alternate scenarios were analyzed, such as varying treatment duration (7 or 14 days) or treatment switch due to a serious adverse event/treatment failure (at day 5 or 10). RESULTS: The model calculated total base case inpatient costs of €15,116 for linezolid and €15,239 for vancomycin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with marginally lower costs (by €123) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA NP). Approximately 85%-87% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). Sensitivity analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: The model results show that linezolid is a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed NP, largely attributable to the higher clinical response rate of patients treated with linezolid.

Antibacterial Treatment of Meticillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: a Cost and Budget Impact Analysis in Greek Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of antimicrobial-resistant infections worldwide. Its prevalence remains high in the Greek hospital setting. Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs) due to MRSA are associated with prolonged hospitalization, additional healthcare costs and significant morbidity. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost analysis and a budget impact analysis relative to different management scenarios for MRSA-cSSTIs from a hospital perspective. METHODS: Equal efficacy was assumed for the pharmacotherapies under evaluation and resource use was elicited via an expert panel of seven local infectious disease specialists. The model was based on a previously published economic model that was adapted for the Greek hospital setting and included a decision tree for the management of hospitalized patients with MRSA-cSSTIs, which simulated costs and outcomes for the duration of hospitalization according to the therapeutic scenario. Inpatient costs consisted of hospitalization, diagnostic/laboratory testing, physician visits and antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: Current economic impact of MRSA-cSSTIs for the inpatient setting in Greek hospitals was estimated at €29,196,218. Total per patient cost according to first-line agent was €2,457, €2,762, €2,850, €3,494 and €3,094 and mean length of stay was 9.2, 12.5, 10.3, 13.0 and 14.0 days for linezolid, vancomycin, daptomycin, tigecycline, and teicoplanin, respectively. An estimated 10,287 MRSA-cSSTI patients are treated annually in Greek hospitals. Thus, increasing the use of linezolid by 11% over a 3-year period (current use 19%; 3 year projection 30%), for the management of MRSA-cSSTIs, could result in 3-year savings of €896,065. CONCLUSION: Management of MRSA-cSSTI requires intensive resource use; overall healthcare costs differ according to the chosen first-line treatment. In light of considerable budget constraints, development of hospital strategies which facilitate early discharge, such as the introduction of clinical criteria and guidelines for switching from intravenous to oral MRSA-cSSTI therapy, could result in substantial savings for the Greek hospital budget.

48-week efficacy and safety of dolutegravir relative to commonly used third agents in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A network meta-analysis can provide estimates of relative efficacy for treatments not directly studied in head-to-head randomized controlled trials. We estimated the relative efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) versus third agents currently recommended by guidelines, including ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r), ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r), efavirenz (EFV), cobicistat-boosted elvitegravir (EVG/c), ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r), raltegravir (RAL), and rilpivirine (RPV), in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature was conducted to identify phase 3/4 randomized controlled clinical trials (up to August 2013) including at least one third agent of interest in combination with a backbone nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) regimen. Bayesian fixed-effect network meta-analysis models adjusting for the type of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine [TDF/FTC] or abacavir/lamivudine [ABC/3TC]) were used to evaluate week 48 efficacy (HIV-RNA suppression to <50 copies/mL and change in CD4+ cells/µL) and safety (lipid changes, adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events) of DTG relative to all other treatments. Sensitivity analyses assessing the impact of NRTI treatment adjustment and random-effects models were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies including 17,000 patients were combined in the analysis. Adjusting for the effect of NRTI backbone, treatment with DTG resulted in significantly higher odds of virologic suppression (HIV RNA<50 copies/mL) and increase in CD4+ cells/µL versus ATV/r, DRV/r, EFV, LPV/r, and RPV. Dolutegravir had better or equivalent changes in total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, and lower odds of adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events compared to all treatments. Random-effects and unadjusted models resulted in similar conclusions. CONCLUSION: Three clinical trials of DTG have demonstrated comparable or superior efficacy and safety to DRV, RAL, and EFV in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. This network meta-analysis suggests DTG is also favorable or comparable to other commonly used third agents (ATV/r, LPV/r, RPV, and EVG/c).

Modeling the economic impact of linezolid versus vancomycin in confirmed nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the economic impacts of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: We used a 4-week decision tree model incorporating published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use and costs (in 2012 US dollars), such as efficacy, mortality, serious adverse events, treatment duration and length of hospital stay. The results presented are from a US payer perspective. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia was 10 days. Clinical treatment success (used for the cost-effectiveness ratio) and failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events or mortality were possible clinical outcomes that could impact costs. Cost of treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness per successfully treated patient were calculated for linezolid versus vancomycin. Univariate (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The model allowed us to calculate the total base case inpatient costs as $46,168 (linezolid) and $46,992 (vancomycin). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with lower costs ($824 less) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia). Approximately 80% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). The results of our probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that linezolid is the cost-effective alternative under varying willingness to pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: These model results show that linezolid has a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia, largely attributable to the higher clinical trial response rate of patients treated with linezolid. The higher drug acquisition cost of linezolid was offset by lower treatment failure-related costs and fewer days of hospitalization.

Cost-Effectiveness of Linezolid versus Vancomycin among Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Confirmed Nosocomial Pneumonia in China.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous linezolid as a first-line agent against intravenous vancomycin in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia in four Chinese cities. METHODS: A decision-analytic model of 4-week time horizon was used to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses from the payer's perspective. Clinical outcomes and resource use data were derived from a head-to-head trial, supplemented with local cost estimates based on hospital data via an expert panel. A series of scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of uncertainty around model inputs. All results were reported in 2012 Chinese Renminbi. RESULTS: The predicted probability of overall treatment success was 0.629 and 0.602 for linezolid and vancomycin, respectively. Total inpatient costs varied across the four cities, ranging from ¥58,835 to ¥86,894 for linezolid and ¥58,390 to ¥87,033 for vancomycin, respectively. Linezolid was demonstrated to be a dominant treatment strategy in Guangzhou. In Beijing, Nanjing, and Xi'an, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of additional successfully treated patient were ¥1,861, ¥163, and ¥16,509, respectively. Dominance by linezolid was observed in some scenario analyses with parameters such as treatment duration, inclusion of cost of managing adverse events, and drug acquisition costs being the main drivers of cost-effectiveness results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite linezolid's higher drug acquisition cost, its superior clinical efficacy renders it a likely cost-effective alternative for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia as compared with branded vancomycin from the payer perspectives of Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, and Xi'an.

Economic burden of inpatient and outpatient antibiotic treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft-tissue infections: a comparison of linezolid, vancomycin, and daptomycin.

BACKGROUND: Previous economic analyses evaluating treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTI) failed to include all direct treatment costs such as outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Our objective was to develop an economic model from a US payer perspective that includes all direct inpatient and outpatient costs incurred by patients with MRSA cSSTI receiving linezolid, vancomycin, or daptomycin. METHODS: A 4-week decision model was developed for this economic analysis. Published literature and database analyses with validation by experts provided clinical, resource use, and cost inputs on data such as efficacy rate, length of stay, adverse events, and OPAT services. Base-case analysis assumed equal efficacy and equal length of stay for treatments. We conducted several sensitivity analyses where assumptions on resource use or efficacy were varied. Costs were reported in year-end 2011 US dollars. RESULTS: Total treatment costs in the base-case were lower for linezolid ($10,571) than vancomycin ($11,096), and daptomycin ($13,612). Inpatient treatment costs were $740 more, but outpatient costs, $1,266 less with linezolid than vancomycin therapy due to a switch to oral linezolid when the patient was discharged. Compared with daptomycin, both inpatient and outpatient treatment costs were lower with linezolid by $87 and $2,954 respectively. In sensitivity analyses, linezolid had lower costs compared with vancomycin and daptomycin when using differential length of stay data from a clinical trial, and using success rates from a meta-analysis. In a scenario without peripherally inserted central catheter line costs, linezolid became slightly more expensive than vancomycin (by $285), but remained less costly than daptomycin (by $2,316). CONCLUSION: Outpatient costs of managing MRSA cSSTI may be reduced by 30%-50% with oral linezolid compared with vancomycin or daptomycin. Results from this analysis support potential economic benefit and cost savings of using linezolid versus traditional OPAT when total inpatient and outpatient medical costs are evaluated.

Estimating the economic burden of food-induced allergic reactions and anaphylaxis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is reported to affect 4% to 6% of children and 1% to 2% of adults in the United States. Every year, allergic reactions result in visits to physicians, emergency departments, and hospitals. However, the economic burden of food-induced allergic reactions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the direct medical costs and indirect costs of food-induced allergic reactions and anaphylaxis in the United States. METHODS: Costs were estimated with a bottom-up approach from a societal perspective: the average cost of illness per patient was calculated and multiplied by reported prevalence estimates. Patients with an inpatient admission, emergency department admission, office-based physician visit, or outpatient visit for a food-induced allergic reaction were identified from a list of federally administered 2006 and 2007 databases by using International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, codes. Indirect costs were quantified by estimating lost productivity in terms of lost earnings caused by absenteeism and mortality of patients or caregivers. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to measure the robustness of the estimates. RESULTS: For 2007, direct medical costs were $225 million, and indirect costs were $115 million. Office visits accounted for 52.5% of costs, and the remainder was split between emergency visits (20%), inpatient hospitalizations (11.8%), outpatient visits (3.9%), ambulance runs (3%), and epinephrine devices (8.7%). Simulations from probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested mean direct medical costs were $307 million and indirect costs were $203 million. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of allergic reactions caused by food and anaphylaxis was an estimated half a billion dollars in 2007. Ambulatory visits accounted for more than half of the costs.

US hospital database analysis of invasive aspergillosis in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease non-traditional host.

OBJECTIVES: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is reported increasingly in non-traditional hosts, typically patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives were to describe the excess burden of IA in COPD, including mortality, resource utilization, and costs, as well as to examine the impact of initial antifungal selection on clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used national data from 2005 to 2008, from the Premier Perspective hospital database. IA was identified using proxy ICD-9 codes based on published algorithms. The COPD + IA patient cohort was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Excess resource utilization was analyzed by matching cases (COPD + IA) and controls (COPD patients without aspergillosis) on demographic and clinical variables. Multivariate analyses were used to assess the impact of initial antifungal drug selection on outcomes in COPD + IA. RESULTS: In total, 475 COPD + IA patients were identified (mean age 69 years, 50% male, 76% Caucasian). COPD + IA cases had significantly higher costs, length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and mortality compared to COPD controls (all p < 0.01). On average, antifungal therapy was initiated on hospital day 6, with mean length of therapy 15 days, and one-third of patients were in the ICU when antifungal treatment was initiated. Most commonly used antifungals were voriconazole, fluconazole, and caspofungin. Patients receiving fluconazole as the initial antifungal, an agent inactive against moulds, had almost two times greater mortality (p = 0.016), two additional hospital days (p = 0.002), and 25% greater costs (p = 0.007), compared to patients receiving voriconazole first-line. Findings were consistent in sub-analyses including ICU patients. LIMITATIONS: 'Invasive' form of aspergillosis was identified using proxy ICD-9 codes based on published literature. Additional limitations stem from the study's non-randomized, retrospective design that is typical with any database analyses. CONCLUSIONS: COPD + IA patients had significantly higher mortality, resource utilization, and costs versus COPD controls. Treatment with an agent active against Aspergillus was associated with better survival and reduced economic burden, therefore this potential etiology of pneumonia should be considered when contemplating antifungal therapy in COPD patients.

Media coverage of off-label promotion: a content analysis of US newspapers.

BACKGROUND: Promotion of drugs for off-label use is newsworthy, because it is an illegal but all too common strategy used by pharmaceutical companies. The print media are an important source of information about coverage of off-label promotion of drugs and devices and can influence public perceptions of the practice. OBJECTIVES: Print media coverage of off-label promotion during the years 1990-2008 were described and quantified. The primary themes and general tones relating to off-label promotion articles were evaluated. General concerns associated with off-label promotion and complaints about specific brand name drugs were also identified. METHODS: Content analyses of the top 6 US newspapers were conducted over the period of 1990-2008 to analyze the media coverage given to off-label promotion of drugs and devices. Headlines and full text of articles were analyzed for primary themes and tones of the coverage. Intercoder reliability tests were performed on all the study variables. RESULTS: One hundred and one articles were identified meeting the study inclusion criteria. Coverage varied by newspaper. The Wall Street Journal had the most coverage on the topic (45%), and USA Today and Chicago Tribune had the least coverage (5%). Overall, most of the stories sampled were deemed to have a negative tone in coverage (77%), focusing mainly on lawsuits against drug companies for promoting their drugs for off-label uses. Pfizer's Neurontin(®) (Pfizer Inc., New York, NY 10017, USA) and Johnson & Johnson's Retin-A(®) (Orthoneutrogena, Los Angeles, CA 90045, USA) received the most media attention. CONCLUSION: The news media helps shape public understanding of promotional practices of pharmaceutical companies and their potential benefits and harms. This study suggests that print media coverage is generally negative about off-label promotion, focusing on legal actions taken against drug companies and the negative consequences of such promotional practices.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anticoagulation strategies in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary studies document the outcomes of unfractionated heparin (UFH), enoxaparin, fondaparinux, and bivalirudin in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). It remains unclear which anticoagulant regimen is the most cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing 4 anticoagulant regimens in NSTE-ACS. METHODS: A decision analysis was conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. Data sources included the SYNERGY, OASIS-5, and ACUITY trials, including 2 subgroup analyses. A decision tree model was created incorporating the outcomes associated with 4 antithrombotic approaches: UFH with eptifibatide, enoxaparin with eptifibatide, bivalirudin alone, and fondaparinux with eptifibatide. The percentage of eptifibatide use in each arm was consistent with clinical trials. Probabilities of complications (eg, myocardial infarction, revascularization, major/minor bleeding at 30 days) were calculated. Costs were assigned to each outcome, incorporating the cost associated with diagnosis-related group and/or current procedural terminology codes, drug acquisition, and red blood cell infusions. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed bivalirudin monotherapy to be the least costly regimen ($1131 per average course), and it dominated enoxaparin plus eptifibatide ($1609) and UFH plus eptifibatide ($1739) in cost-effectiveness. The total average cost of fondaparinux with eptifibatide ($1184) was higher than bivalirudin alone, but the combination was more effective, resulting in an incremental cost of $2569 per each additional patient treated without complication. Sensitivity analyses showed the model's results to be sensitive to drug acquisition cost and complication probabilities. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored neither bivalirudin nor fondaparinux; however, when 2 or more vials of bivalirudin were necessary, bivalirudin was no longer a cost-effective alternative. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin is the least costly agent in moderate- to high-risk NSTE-ACS patients managed with an early invasive approach, if its use is consistent with the ACUITY trial. Fondaparinux is the preferred agent in patients undergoing a conservative treatment strategy.