Cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy in the maintenance of patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The PAOLA-1 trial confirmed that adding olaparib to bevacizumab significantly increased clinical benefit following response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency-positive ovarian cancer. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment for patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer from the Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A lifetime partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free, post-progression 1, post-progression 2, and death) and monthly cycles was developed. Long-term survival, defined as 60 months, was included as a landmark to extrapolate progression-free survival from PAOLA-1. Weibull distribution was selected as the most accurate survival model for progression-free survival extrapolation. Time to second progression and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric survival models. Mortality was obtained from the overall survival and adjusted by Spanish women mortality rates. Health state utilities and utility decrements for adverse events were included. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Direct costs (in 2021 euros (€)) were obtained from local sources and included drug acquisition and administration, subsequent therapies, monitoring costs, adverse events, and palliative care. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab alone, olaparib plus bevacizumab increased QALYs and life-years by 2.39 and 2.77, respectively, at an incremental cost of €58 295.31, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €24 371/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that olaparib plus bevacizumab had a 49.5% and 90.3% probability of being cost-effective versus bevacizumab alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25 000 and €60 000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSION: For patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer, olaparib plus bevacizumab is a cost-effective maintenance therapy compared with bevacizumab alone in Spain.

Análise de custos de pacientes cirróticos descompensados recebendo albumina a longo prazo versus tratamento médico padrão nos sistemas de saúde público e privado do Brasil / Albumin versus standard medical treatment in brazilian public and private healthcare systems

ABSTRACT Background: Cirrhosis is one of the final stages of chronic liver disease. Common causes of cirrhosis include alcoholism and viral hepatitis infections. Cirrhosis can progress from an asymptomatic, compensated phase to decompensation and the appearance of overt symptoms. There is no specific treatment for decompensated cirrhosis. The ANSWER trial positioned long-term albumin infusions as a potential treatment for patients with cirrhosis and uncomplicated ascites. Objective: This study assesses the economic impact of albumin infusions following the ANSWER trial regimen in Brazilian patients with decompensated cirrhosis from the public and private healthcare systems perspectives. Methods: The incremental cost per patient per year was calculated for standard medical treatment (SMT) plus long-term albumin infusions versus SMT alone. Costs of diuretics and albumin were obtained from Banco de Preços em Saúde and the Drug Market Regulation Chamber. Costs for complication and procedures were gathered from the published literature. Costs were transformed to 2021 Brazilian reals (BRL). Incidences of clinical complications and treatments were gathered from the ANSWER trial. Univariate sensitivity analysis was performed by increasing and decreasing all inputs by 20%. Results: The cost per patient per year was 118,759 BRL and 189,675 BRL lower for patients treated with SMT and albumin (compared to SMT only) for the public and private healthcare systems, respectively. The additional cost of albumin was offset by reduced complications and treatments (149,526 BRL and 249,572 BRL, respectively). The univariate sensitivity analysis showed cost savings for both healthcare systems in all the scenarios assessed. Conclusion: This economic analysis suggests that, if the ANSWER trial clinical outcomes translate into real-world effectiveness, addition of albumin infusions to SMT in patients with decompensated cirrhosis may lead to cost savings for the public and private healthcare systems in Brazil.

RESUMO Contexto: A cirrose representa o estágio final da doença hepática crônica. Causas comuns de cirrose incluem alcoolismo e infecções por hepatite viral. A cirrose pode progredir de uma fase compensada assintomática para descompensação e aparecimento de sintomas evidentes. Não há tratamento específico para cirrose descompensada. O estudo ANSWER demonstrou que a administração de albumina a longo prazo pode representar um potencial tratamento para pacientes com cirrose e ascite não complicada. Objetivo: Nosso estudo avalia o impacto econômico da administração de albumina a longo prazo seguindo o protocolo do estudo ANSWER em pacientes brasileiros com cirrose descompensada, sob a perspectiva dos sistemas de saúde público e privado. Métodos: O custo incremental por paciente por ano foi calculado para o tratamento médico padrão (SMT) associado a administração de albumina a longo prazo comparado a SMT apenas. Os custos de diuréticos e albumina foram obtidos no Banco de Preços em Saúde e na Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos. Os custos de complicações e procedimentos foram coletados da literatura publicada. Os custos foram transformados em Reais de 2021 (BRL). As incidências de complicações clínicas e tratamentos foram coletadas do estudo ANSWER. Uma análise de sensibilidade univariada foi realizada aumentando e diminuindo todas as variáveis em 20%. Resultados: O custo por paciente por ano foi de R$ 118.759 e R$ 189.675 menor para pacientes tratados com SMT e albumina (comparado apenas com SMT) para os sistemas de saúde público e privado, respectivamente. O custo adicional da albumina foi compensado pela redução de complicações e tratamentos (149.526 BRL e 249.572 BRL, respectivamente). A análise de sensibilidade univariada mostrou redução de custos para ambos os sistemas de saúde em todos os cenários avaliados. Conclusão: Esta análise econômica sugere que, se os resultados clínicos do estudo ANSWER se confirmarem no mundo real, a administração de albumina associada ao SMT em pacientes com cirrose descompensada pode levar a redução de custos para os sistemas de saúde público e privado no Brasil.

Analysis of the costs associated with the follow-up of HIV patients discontinuing antiretroviral treatment due to lack of effectiveness or unacceptable toxicity in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of resources and the costs associated with  following up patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus after  discontinuation of an antiretroviral treatment and initiation of a new one due to  a lack of effectiveness or unacceptable toxicity, as compared to the costs  involved in the routine follow-up of patients on antiretroviral treatment, from  the Spanish National Health System perspective. Method: The use of resources (clinical tests, medical visits, and hospital pharmacy visits) associated with following three profiles of patients  infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (stable ones, those  discontinuing an existing antiretroviral treatment and being switched to a new  one due to a lack of effectiveness, and those discontinuing an existing antiretroviral treatment and being switched to a new one due to  unacceptable toxicity) was identified, based on clinical practice guidelines and  the findings of a multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 5). The experts agreed on  the main adverse events leading to discontinuation, classifying them into  gastrointestinal, renal, osseous, musculoskeletal, dermatological, hepatic, lipid  profile-related, neuropsychiatric and sexual alterations. Unit costs were  identified from official healthcare costs databases. The cost  (€, 2020) of  following up each patient profile was estimated, excluding the cost of the  antiretroviral treatment itself, with a time horizon of two years. RESULTS: The per-patient cost of following up stable patients over two years  was estimated at €4,148 (tests: €2,293; visits: €1,855). Patient follow-up after  discontinuation of an existing antiretroviral treatment and initiation of a  different one due to a lack of effectiveness was estimated at €5,434 (tests:  €2,777; visits: €2,657). The cost of follow-up after discontinuation of an  existing regimen and initiation of a new one due to unacceptable toxicity varied  according to the adverse event prompting the switch, ranging from  €4,690 for lipid profile dysregulation, to €5,304, for musculoskeletal  alterations. In this patient profile, the cost of tests ranged from €2,403 to  €3,017, and that of visits from €2,287 to €2,842. CONCLUSIONS: The cost associated with following up of patients infected with  the human immunodeficiency virus after discontinuation of an existing  antiretroviral regimen and initiation of a new one is higher than that of routine  follow-up, without taking the cost of drugs into account. The treatment  discontinuation rate is a relevant factor when selecting the most appropriate  therapy for each patient.

OBJETIVO: Estimar el uso de recursos y costes asociados al seguimiento de  pacientes con infección por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana tras  discontinuación del tratamiento antirretroviral actual debido a falta de  efectividad o toxicidad inaceptable y cambio a un nuevo tratamiento antirretroviral, comparado con el seguimiento habitual de los  pacientes con tratamiento antirretroviral, desde la perspectiva del Sistema  Nacional de Salud español.Método: Se identificó el uso de recursos (pruebas clínicas, visitas médicas,  visitas a la farmacia hospitalaria) asociado al seguimiento de pacientes con  infección por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana en tres perfiles de  pacientes (estable, discontinuación y cambio por falta de efectividad,  discontinuación y cambio por toxicidad inaceptable), a partir de las guías de  práctica clínica y un panel de expertos multidisciplinar (n = 5). Los expertos  consensuaron los principales eventos adversos que conducían a la  discontinuación, agrupándolos en: alteraciones gastrointestinales, renales,  óseas, musculoesqueléticas, dermatológicas, hepáticas y del perfil lipídico,  trastornos neuropsiquiátricos y sexuales. Los costes unitarios se identificaron a  partir de bases de datos oficiales  assode costes sanitarios y de la literatura.  Se estimó el coste (€, 2020) del seguimiento en cada perfil de paciente, sin  incluir el coste derivado del tratamiento antirretroviral, en un horizonte  temporal de dos años. RESULTADOS: El coste por paciente a dos años se estimó en 4.148 € (pruebas:  2.293 €; visitas: 1.855 €) para el seguimiento del paciente estable. El  seguimiento del paciente tras discontinuación por falta de efectividad y cambio  de tratamiento antirretroviral se estimó en 5.434 € (pruebas: 2.777 €; visitas:  2.657 €). El coste del seguimiento tras la discontinuación por toxicidad  inaceptable y cambio de tratamiento antirretroviral varió en función del evento  adverso que motivó el cambio, oscilando entre 4.690 € para las alteraciones  del perfil lipídico, y 5.304 € para las alteraciones musculoesqueléticas. En este  perfil de pacientes, las pruebas variaron entre 2.403 € y 3.017 € y las visitas  entre 2.287 € y 2.842 €. CONCLUSIONES: El coste asociado al seguimiento del paciente con infección por  el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana tras discontinuación y cambio a un  nuevo tratamiento antirretroviral es mayor comparado con el seguimiento  habitual, sin tener en cuenta el coste farmacológico. La tasa de discontinuación  del tratamiento antirretroviral es un factor relevante a la hora  de seleccionar la terapia más adecuada para cada paciente.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/ Glycopyrronium/ Formoterol Fumarate versus Dual Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Spain.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR) versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA, respectively, in patients with moderate to severe COPD, from the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model with monthly cycle length was developed with baseline and treatment effect data from ETHOS clinical trial, together with utility values from literature and Spanish healthcare resource costs (€, 2021). A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and benefits. The model comprised ten health states: nine forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)-related, which were divided by three levels of severity: moderate (FEV1 ≥50% and <80%); severe (FEV1 ≥30% and <50%) and very severe (FEV1 <30%) and a death state. Each FEV1-health state was divided into no exacerbation, moderate exacerbation, and severe exacerbations. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost per exacerbation avoided, per life year (LY) gained, and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (ICUR). One-way (OWSA), scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. Results: According to this cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model, BUD/GLY/FOR was associated with a lower totals exacerbation per patient (12.80) compared to LAMA/LABA (13.36) and ICS/LABA (13.23) and higher LYs (10.32 vs 10.14 and 10.06, respectively) and QALYs (7.55 vs 7.41 and 7.32, respectively). The incremental costs were €850.95, and €2422.26, respectively, per exacerbation avoided, €2733.38 and €4111.15, respectively, per LY gained and €3461.19 and €4545.24 per QALY gained. OWSA showed that the model was most sensitive to the costs of treatments following discontinuation, but the ICUR remained below the cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY gained. In the PSA, the probability of BUD/GLY/FOR being cost-effective was 91.32% vs LAMA/LABA and 99.29% vs ICS/LABA. Conclusion: BUD/GLY/FOR is a cost-effective treatment strategy for Spanish NHS patients with COPD compared to dual therapies.

Patient and retina specialists' preferences in neovascular age-related macular degeneration treatment. A discrete choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) leads to severe and permanent visual impairment, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and functional independence. Although treatment with anti- vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) prevents and, in some cases, reverses visual damage, the need for frequent monitoring visits and intravitreal injections represents a significant burden on patients, caregivers and retina specialists. OBJECTIVE: To elicit preferences for nAMD treatment characteristics from the perspectives of patients and retina specialists. METHOD: A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants (patients > 50 years with nAMD receiving anti-VEGF drugs for at least 2 years and without previous experience with anti-VEGF and retina specialists working in the Spanish National Healthcare System) were asked to select one of two hypothetical treatments resulting from the combination of five attributes (effects on visual function, effects on retinal fluid, treatment regimen, monitoring frequency, and cost); their levels were identified by reviewing the literature and two focus groups. The relative importance (RI) given to each attribute was estimated using a mixed logit model. The marginal rates of substitution (MRS) were calculated taking cost as the risk attribute. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients (P) [aged 79.0 (SD:7.4) years; 57.3% women; 2.3 (SD:0.7) years with nAMD; 2.1 years (SD:0.1) in treatment] and 66 retina specialists (RS) participated in the study. Participants gave greater RI to improvements in their visual function [60.0% (P); 52.7% (RS)], lower monitoring frequency [20.2% (P); 27.1% (RS)] and reduction in retinal fluid [9.8% (P); 13.0%(RS)]. Patients and retina specialists would agree to an increase in cost by 65.0% and 56.5%, respectively, in exchange for improvements of visual function; and 25.5% and 43.3% on delaying monitoring frequency by one month. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of treatment, in terms of visual function improvements, is the main driver for treatment election for both patients and retina specialists. Treatment monitoring requirements are also considered, mainly from the retina specialist's perspective. These results suggest that the use of more efficacious anti-VEGF agents with a longer duration of action may contribute to aligning treatment characteristics with patients/specialists' preferences. A better alignment would facilitate better disease management, fulfilling the unmet needs of patients and retina specialists.

A cost-consequence analysis of the preferential use of secukinumab versus adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. RESULTS: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

Preferences for Renal Cell Carcinoma Pharmacological Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients and Oncologists.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this investigation was to explore patients' and oncologists' preferences for the characteristics of a pharmacological regimen for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) conducted in Spain. A literature review, a focus group with oncologists and interviews with patients informed the DCE design. Five attributes were included: progression survival gain, risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), administration mode, and treatment cost. Preferences were analyzed using a mixed-logit model to estimate relative importance (RI) of attributes (importance of an attribute in relation to all others), which was compared between aRCC patients and oncologists treating aRCC. Willingness to pay (WTP, payer: health system) for a benefit in survival or in risk reduction and maximum acceptable risk (MAR) in SAEs for improving survival were estimated from the DCE. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify factors that influence preference. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients with aRCC (77.1% male, mean age 65.9 years [SD: 10.4], mean time since RCC diagnosis 6.3 years [SD: 6.1]) and 67 oncologists (52.2% male, mean age 41.9 years [SD: 8.4], mean duration of experience in RCC 10.2 years [SD: 7.5]) participated in the study. The most important attribute for patients and oncologists was survival gain (RI: 43.6% vs. 54.7% respectively, p<0.05), followed by HRQoL (RI: 35.5% vs. 18.0%, respectively, p<0.05). MAR for SAEs was higher among oncologists than patients, while WTP (for the health system) was higher for patients. Differences in preferences were found according to time since diagnosis and education level (patients) or length of professional experience (oncologists). CONCLUSION: Patients' and oncologists' preferences for aRCC treatment are determined mainly by the efficacy (survival gain) but also by the HRQoL provided. The results of the study can help to inform decision-making in the selection of appropriate aRCC treatment.

A Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Preferential Use of Secukinumab Versus Adalimumab for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. RESULTS: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

Patient-physician discrepancy in the perception of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. A qualitative systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations on chronic diseases management emphasise the need to consider patient perspectives and shared decision-making. Discrepancies between patients and physicians' perspectives on treatment objectives, disease activity, preferences and treatment have been described for immune-mediate inflammatory diseases. These differences could result on patient dissatisfaction and negatively affect outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the degree of patient-physician discrepancy in three chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA] and psoriasis [Ps]), identifying the main areas of discrepancy and possible predictor factors. METHODS: Qualitative systematic review of the available literature on patient and physician discrepancies in the management of RA, PsA and Ps. The search was performed in international (Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI-WOK) and Spanish electronic databases (MEDES, IBECS), including papers published from April 1, 2008 to April 1, 2018, in English or Spanish, and conducted in European or North American populations. Study quality was assessed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies were included (13 RA; 3 PsA; 4 Ps; 1 RA, Ps, and Axial Spondyloarthritis). A significant and heterogeneous degree of discrepancy between patients and physicians was found, regarding disease activity, treatment, clinical expectations, remission concept, and patient-physician relationship. In RA and PsA, studies were mainly focused on the evaluation of disease activity, which is perceived as higher from the patient's than the physician's perspective, with the discrepancy determined by factors such as patient's perception of pain and fatigue. In Ps, studies were focused on treatment satisfaction and patient-physician relationship, showing a lower degree of discrepancy in the satisfaction regarding these aspects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant degree of patient-physician discrepancy regarding the management of RA, PA, and Ps, what can have a major impact on shared decision-making. Future research may help to show whether interventions considering discrepancy improve shared decision-making.

Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has proven effective in reducing CRC mortality. This study aimed to systematically review, and evaluate the reporting quality, of the economic evidence regarding CRC screening in average-risk individuals. METHODS: Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment database. Eligible studies were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing CRC screening strategies in average-risk individuals, published in English or Spanish, between January 2012 and November 2018. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: Of 1,993 publications initially retrieved, 477 were excluded by duplicate review, 1,449 by title/abstract review, and 34 by full-text review. Finally, 33 publications were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies were conducted in Europe (36,4%), followed by United States (24,2%) and Asia (24,2%). The main screening modalities considered were fecal immunochemical tests (70%), colonoscopy (67%), guaiac fecal occult blood test (42%) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (30%). In most studies, CRC screening was deemed cost-effective compared to no screening. Sensitivity analyses indicated that cost of CRC screening tests, adherence to screening, screening test sensitivity, and cost of CRC treatment had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results across studies. The majority of studies (73%) adequately reported at least 50% of the items included in the CHEERS checklist. Least well reported items included setting, study perspective, discount rate, model choice, and methods to identify effectiveness data or to estimate resource use and costs. CONCLUSIONS: CRC screening is an efficient alternative to no screening. Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude which strategy should be preferred for population-based screening programs. Although we observed an overall good adherence to CHEERS recommendations, there is still room for improvement in economic evaluations reporting in this field.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bezlotoxumab Added to Standard of Care Versus Standard of Care Alone for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in High-Risk Patients in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the major cause of infectious nosocomial diarrhoea and is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality and economic impact. Bezlotoxumab administered in combination with standard of care (SoC) antibiotic therapy prevents recurrent CDI. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of bezlotoxumab added to SoC, compared to SoC alone, to prevent the recurrence of CDI in high-risk patients from the Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate the natural history of CDI over a lifetime horizon in five populations of patients at high risk of CDI recurrence according to MODIFY trials: (1) ≥ 65 years old; (2) severe CDI; (3) immunocompromised; (4) ≥ 1 CDI episode in the previous 6 months; and (5) ≥ 65 years old and with ≥ 1 CDI episode in the previous 6 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: In all patient populations (from 1 to 5), bezlotoxumab added to SoC reduced CDI recurrence compared to SoC alone by 26.4, 19.5, 21.2, 26.6 and 39.7%, respectively. The resulting ICERs for the respective subgroups were €12,724, €17,495, €9545, €7386, and €4378. The model parameters with highest impact on the ICER were recurrence rate (first), mortality, and utility values. The probability that bezlotoxumab was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €21,000/QALY was 85.5%, 54.1%, 86.0%, 94.5%, 99.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that bezlotoxumab added to SoC compared to SoC alone is a cost-effective treatment to prevent the recurrence of CDI in high-risk patients. The influence of changes in model parameters on DSA results was higher in patients ≥ 65 years old, with severe CDI and immunocompromised. Additionally, PSA estimated that the probability of cost-effectiveness exceeded 85% in most subgroups. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone compared to bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone for the second-line treatment of multiple myeloma in Chile. / Análisis costo-efectividad de lenalidomida en combinación con dexametasona frente a bortezomib combinado con dexametasona en el tratamiento en segunda línea del mieloma múltiple en Chile.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a hematologic malignancy affecting bone marrow derived plasma cells. Current therapies are not able to eradicate the disease and most patients become refractory to the treatment. Lenalidomide and bortezomib have proved effective in the second-line treatment of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone compared to bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma previously treated with bortezomib, from the perspective of the Chilean National Health Service. METHODOLOGY: A four-state Markov model (preprogression on treatment; preprogression off treatment, progression and death) was used to simulate the evolution of a cohort of multiple myeloma patients over a 25-year time horizon. Efficacy data, resource use and frequency of adverse events were extracted from MM009/010 studies and a retrospective analysis of retreatment with bortezomib. All inputs were validated by experts. A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and health outcomes. The robustness of the results was evaluated through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone treatment provided 1.41 incremental life years and 0.83 incremental quality-adjusted life years in comparison with bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone, with an incremental cost of 11 864 597.86 CLP (19 589.86 US$). The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio were estimated at 8 410 266.92 CLP (13 886,35 US$) / incremental life year and 14 271 896.16 CLP (23 564,59 US$)/incremental quality-adjusted life years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone represents a potentially cost-effective alternative for the second-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for transplantation, from the perspective of the Chilean National Health Service.

CONTEXTO: El mieloma múltiple es una neoplasia de las células plasmáticas de la medula ósea. Las terapias disponibles no son curativas y la mayoría de los pacientes se vuelve refractario al tratamiento. Agentes como lenalidomida y bortezomib han demostrado su eficacia en el tratamien-to en segunda línea de estos pacientes. OBJETIVO: Evaluar el costo-efectividad de la combinación lenalidomida/dexametasona frente a bortezomib/dexametasona en pacientes con mieloma múltiple, no candidatos a trasplante, previamente tratados con bortezomib, desde la perspectiva del sistema nacional de salud chileno. METODOLOGÍA: Se empleó un modelo de Markov que simula la evolución de una cohorte de pacientes a través de cuatro estados de salud (preprogresión en tratamiento, preprogresión sin tratamiento, progresión o muerte) en un horizonte temporal de 25 años. Los datos de eficacia, uso de recursos y frecuencia de efectos adversos fueron extraídos de los ensayos sobre mieloma múltiple MM-009 y MM-010 y de un estudio retrospectivo de retratamiento con bortezomib. Todos los parámetros fueron validados por expertos. Se aplicó una tasa de descuento en costos y beneficios de 3%. La robustez de los resultados fue evaluada mediante un análisis de sensibilidad univariante y probabilístico. RESULTADOS: El tratamiento con lenalidomida/dexametasona proporciona 1,41 años de vida y 0,83 años de vida ajustados por calidad incrementales respecto a bortezomib/dexametasona, con un costo incremental de 11 864 597,86 pesos chilenos (19 589,86 dólares). La ratio de cos-to-efectividad y costo-utilidad incremental se cifró en 8 410 266,92 pesos chilenos (13 886,35 dólares) por año de vida ganado y 14 271 896,16 pesos chilenos (23 564,59 dólares) por año de vida ajustado por calidad respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN: La lenalidomida/dexametasona representa una alternativa potencialmente costo-efectiva, desde la perspectiva del sistema nacional de salud chileno, para el tratamiento en segunda línea de pacientes con mieloma múltiple no candidatos a trasplante.

[Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en pacientes con riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto en España.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in Spain, according to the European guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: A Markov long-term cost-effectiveness model of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk defined according to 5 factors (sex, age, smoking habit, baseline cholesterol level, and systolic blood pressure) using the SCORE system. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed in euros per quality adjusted life years and is calculated according to the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin is associated with a greater health benefit than the other statins across the considered profiles. Rosuvastatin is cost-effective compared to simvastatin in patients with SCORE risk ≥8% in females and ≥6% in males, while between 5% and the indicated values its cost-effectiveness is conditional to the patient baseline c-LDL level. Rosuvastatin is more cost-effective versus atorvastatin in female profiles associated with a SCORE risk≥11% and male profiles with SCORE risk ≥10%. Rosuvastatin is superior versus pitavastatin in both female and male profiles with high and very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin is a cost-effective therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin, especially in specific profiles of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk factors, according to the SCORE system, in Spain.