Treatment patterns and outcomes among patients diagnosed with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma in Europe: a retrospective, longitudinal survey (MELODY study).

BACKGROUND: MELanoma treatment patterns and Outcomes among patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV Disease: a retrospective longitudinal surveY (MELODY), the first multicountry, observational survey in patients with advanced melanoma, aimed to quantify the impact of existing treatment strategies by capturing information on treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients attending a participating site between 1st July 2005 and 30th June 2006 with ≥2 months follow-up were eligible. Data were retrieved retrospectively from advanced melanoma diagnosis until 1st May 2008. Treatment data were collected by line of therapy and response and progression-free survival data by line of systemic treatment. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated for all treated patients. RESULTS: Among all patients screened, 776 were eligible for this analysis. Median OS from the date of advanced disease diagnosis was 16.4 months. After excluding patients diagnosed prior to 1st July 2005 to account for any bias resulting from patient selection, the 12-month survival rate and median OS from the start date of second-line treatment was 28.8% and 6.8 months, respectively. Survival was lower in patients with brain metastases, elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels and more advanced disease. Rates of complete/partial tumour response were 15% and 7% in patients treated with first- and second-line systemic therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite receiving first- and second-line treatment, most patients with advanced melanoma have short survival times and poor prognoses, reinforcing the need for new treatments.

Economic impact of healthcare resource utilisation patterns among patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma in the United Kingdom, Italy, and France: results from a retrospective, longitudinal survey (MELODY study).

OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of healthcare resource utilisation and associated costs for patients with advanced melanoma in the United Kingdom (UK), Italy, and France. METHODS: For patients receiving systemic treatment, or supportive care, data describing hospitalisations, hospice care, and outpatient visits were retrieved retrospectively from advanced disease diagnosis as part of a multicountry observational study. Costs were estimated by multiplying utilisation level by unit cost. In an exploratory analysis, costs were compared between individuals who died within one year of initiating first-line treatment (short-term survivors) and those with ≥ 1 year follow-up (long-term survivors). RESULTS: Hospitalisation costs were highest in France (€6262 per-person compared with €3225 in the UK and €2486 in Italy), reflecting higher rates of hospitalisation. In contrast, outpatient costs were highest in the UK (€782 per-person, compared with €115 in France and €72 in Italy), reflecting the highest rate and frequency of outpatient visits and the highest cost per visit. Hospitalisation rates were consistently higher during supportive care compared with systemic therapy. Roughly one-third of patients entered clinical trials and were not included in the analysis. In exploratory analysis, total costs were generally higher for long-term survivors, but monthly per-patient costs were generally lower for long-term survivors, consistent with a hypothesis that resource utilisation and costs do not necessarily increase proportionally with extended survival. CONCLUSION: Total costs associated with resource utilisation for advanced melanoma patients varied across countries. Overall cost differences were due to differences in frequency and intensity of utilisation patterns and variation in unit costs of health resources.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of aripiprazole vs standard-of-care in the management of community-treated patients with schizophrenia: STAR study.

UNLABELLED: Abstract Background: The Schizophrenia Trial of Aripiprazole (STAR) showed superior efficacy for aripiprazole compared with atypical antipsychotic standard-of-care (SOC) for the community treatment of schizophrenia 1 based on the Investigator Assessment Questionnaire total score. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole compared with SOC medications from a health and social care system perspective. METHODS: Information on health and social care service use was collected using the Client Socio-demographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI). Unit costs attached to each service were used to calculate patients' healthcare and other costs. The primary outcome measure was Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire (IAQ) score; secondary measures included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Improvement response and Quality of Life Scale (QLS). Incremental cost-effectiveness was measured over 26 weeks as the ratio of the difference in mean costs between aripiprazole and SOC (olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone) to the difference in mean outcomes. Net benefit was used to plot the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: The analysis sample (all randomised subjects who met the study inclusion criteria) included 282 individuals randomised to aripiprazole and 266 to SOC (olanzapine, n = 75; quetiapine, n = 110 and risperidone, n = 81). The additional mean cost of achieving a clinically significant difference on the IAQ was £3896, where a clinically significant difference was taken to be an 8-point improvement. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for the IAQ indicated that aripiprazole has a relatively high probability of being viewed as cost-effective for a range of plausible values attached to the incremental outcome difference. Additional costs of a clinically significant improvement on the CGI-Improvement and QLS were £575 and £835, respectively. These measures therefore support the view that aripiprazole is more cost-effective than SOC from a health and social care perspective for people with schizophrenia treated in the community. CONCLUSION: In the STAR study, use of aripiprazole in the management of patients with schizophrenia was cost-effective.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared with venlafaxine-XR in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost effectiveness of duloxetine, a new serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, when compared with venlafaxine-XR in treating major depressive disorder. METHODS: A cost effectiveness analysis, using a decision tree modelled outpatient treatment over 6 months. Analytic perspectives were those of society (all direct and indirect costs) and the Ministry of Health of Ontario (MoH) as payer for all direct costs. Rates of success and dropouts were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Costs were taken from standard lists, adjusted to 2005 Canadian dollars; discounting was not applied. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on monthly acquisition costs and success rates; Monte-Carlo analysis examined all parameters over 10000 iterations. RESULTS: From both perspectives, outcomes all numerically favoured venlafaxine-XR (Expected success = 53% and 57%; symptom-free days [SFDs] = 52.72 and 57.03 for duloxetine and venlafaxine-XR, respectively). Total expected costs/patient treated were, Can dollar 7081 and Can dollar 6551 (MoH), Can dollar 20987 and Can dollar 19 997 (societal perspective), for duloxetine and venlafaxine-XR, respectively. Expected costs/SFD were Can dollar134 and Can dollar 115 (MoH) and Can dollar 398 and Can dollar 351 (societal viewpoint) for duloxetine and venlafaxine-XR, respectively. Although results were sensitive to changes in success rate within the 95% CI, Monte-Carlo analyses using the ICER (incremental cost effectiveness ratio) as outcome found venlafaxine-XR was dominant in approximately 78% of scenarios in both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in pharmacoeconomic outcomes found were modest, but in all cases, favoured venlafaxine-XR over duloxetine. Therefore, a possible advantage may exist at the population level in the treatment of major depressive disorder in Canada. Ultimately, a head to head study of the two drugs would be needed to confirm these findings.