Development of the Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms to Assess Treatment Benefit in Clinical Trials: Foundational Qualitative Research.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic gastrointestinal disorder characterized by abdominal pain and alterations in bowel habits. Three subtypes are defined on the basis of stool patterns: diarrhea-predominant IBS, constipation-predominant IBS, and alternating or mixed IBS. OBJECTIVES: To develop patient-reported outcome measures for qualification by the Food and Drug Administration to support product approvals and labeling in IBS; the article focuses on the qualitative research that provided the foundation for the new measures. METHODS: Forty-nine concept elicitation and 42 cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with subjects meeting Rome III criteria; additional criteria were imposed to yield a sample representative of the target patient population. RESULTS: Although incomplete bowel movements, abnormal stool frequency and consistency, and abdominal pain, discomfort, and bloating were reported most frequently across concept elicitation interviews, the relative importance of specific symptoms varied by subtype. Among their five symptoms most important to treat, diarrhea-predominant and alternating or mixed IBS subjects frequently identified urgency, loose/watery stools, abdominal pain, and cramping, whereas constipation-predominant IBS subjects commonly included infrequent and incomplete bowel movements, bloating, and abdominal pain. The cognitive debriefing interviews facilitated refinement of each item set, supported minor modifications following translatability assessment, and suggested improvements to the electronic interface. Furthermore, subjects reported that every item was relevant and no concepts of importance were missing. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the content validity of the IBS patient-reported outcome measures. A pilot study was recently initiated to inform item reduction, develop scoring algorithms, and provide preliminary psychometric information. Comprehensive psychometric evaluation and responder definition development will follow.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with enalapril but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SAC/VAL versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between SAC/VAL and enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon. Markov states included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (II-IV) and death. Treatment discontinuation, HF-related hospitalizations, and NYHA class progression were modeled as transition states based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril ($81,943 vs $67,287) and was more effective (2.647 QALYs vs 2.546 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $143,891/QALY gained. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was cost-effective up to a cost of $298/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, SAC/VAL mortality benefit, and NYHA progression probability. SAC/VAL had a 10% and 52% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit and may be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care over realistic treatment durations from the payer perspective. Results of this analysis can inform discussions on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market.