Economics of hematopoietic stem cell transplant in immune-mediated neurologic autoimmune diseases.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is a therapeutic procedure for autoimmune diseases which suppresses inflammation and resets the immune system, thereby halting disease activity and disability progression in treatment-resistant patients. This chapter reviews existing guidelines and health economic evaluations of AHSCT for multiple sclerosis (MS) and presents a cost-utility analysis from the UK NHS and personal social services perspective comparing AHSCT with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with highly active relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) based on the only published randomized controlled trial, "MIST," in this population. Over a 5-year time horizon, AHSCT was dominant (more effective and less costly) over the DMTs in MIST. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, there was a 100% probability that AHSCT was cost-effective. This result is explained by the high ongoing costs of DMTs compared with the up-front cost of AHSCT, combined with the high effectiveness of AHSCT. When compared with natalizumab, the result did not change; AHSCT remained dominant. These results support current guideline recommendations regarding AHSCT for highly active RRMS. The cost-effectiveness of AHSCT in progressive and aggressive MS and other immune-mediated neurologic diseases remains uncertain due to a lack of health economic analyses, reflecting the limited clinical evidence base.

Tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: an updated meta-analysis of 14 894 patients across 14 trials.

BACKGROUND: Both tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine demonstrate excellent efficacy and safety overall, but concerns remain over specific changes in markers of bone and renal function. Lower plasma tenofovir concentrations are seen with TAF and in unboosted regimens. We assess TAF vs. TDF safety with and without booster coformulation. METHODS: A previous systematic review was updated with recent clinical trials. TAF vs. TDF efficacy and safety were compared in boosted and unboosted subgroups. Efficacy was measured by viral suppression. Key safety endpoints included all adverse events, serious adverse events, Grades 3-4 adverse events and adverse event discontinuation. Further specific renal and bone markers were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 14 clinical trials comparing TDF and TAF regimens were identified. A significant difference (P = 0.0004) in efficacy was shown in the boosted subgroup in favour of TAF, but no difference was seen in the unboosted subgroup. There were no significant differences between TAF and TDF for any of the key safety endpoints analysed. No differences were seen for the bone markers analysed. No difference was found for renal tubular events. There was a difference in risk for discontinuation due to renal adverse events when boosted (P = 0.03), but none when unboosted. CONCLUSION: Across all main safety endpoints, no differences between TAF and TDF are seen. Boosted TDF regimens were associated with lesser comparative efficacy than boosted TAF and a higher risk of renal event discontinuation. However, modern antiretroviral regimens are more commonly unboosted. This study finds no difference in efficacy or safety in unboosted TAF vs. TDF.

Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: is there a true difference in efficacy and safety?

BACKGROUND: Higher plasma tenofovir concentrations are associated with higher risks of renal and bone adverse events. The pharmacokinetic boosters ritonavir (RTV) and cobicistat (COBI) significantly increase plasma area under the curve (AUC) concentrations of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), by 25-37%. When combined with RTV or COBI, the dose of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is lowered from 25 mg to 10 mg daily, but the TDF dose is maintained at 300 mg daily. OBJECTIVE: To assess the differences in safety and efficacy between tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in regimens with and without the pharmacokinetic boosters RTV and COBI. METHODS: A PubMed/Embase search inclusive of dates up to 17 July 2017 identified 11 randomised head-to-head trials (8111 patients) of TDF versus TAF. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate pooled risk differences and 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models. A pre-defined sub-group analysis compared TAF with TDF, either when boosted with RTV or COBI, or when unboosted. RESULTS: Nine clinical trials compared TAF and TDF for treatment of HIV-1 and two were for hepatitis B treatment. The eleven clinical trials documented 4574 patients with boosting RTV or COBI in both arms, covering 7198 patient-years of follow-up. Some 3537 patients received unboosted regimens, totalling 3595 patient-years of follow-up. Boosted TDF-treated patients showed borderline lower HIV RNA suppression <50 copies/mL (P=0.05), more bone fractures (P=0.04), larger decreases in bone mineral density (P<0.001), and more discontinuations for bone (P=0.03) or renal (P=0.002) adverse events. By contrast, there were no significant differences in HIV RNA suppression rates or clinical safety endpoints between unboosted TAF and unboosted TDF. CONCLUSIONS: TDF boosted with RTV or COBI was associated with higher risks of bone and renal adverse events, and lower HIV RNA suppression rates, compared with TAF. By contrast, when ritonavir and cobicistat were not used, there were no efficacy differences between TAF and TDF, and marginal differences in safety. The health economic value of TAF versus low-cost generic TDF may be limited when these drugs are used without cobicistat or ritonavir.