Reductions in concomitant antiseizure medication drug load during adjunctive cenobamate therapy: Post-hoc analysis of a subset of patients from a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients with epilepsy require polytherapy, which increases their antiseizure medication (ASM) drug load, a measure that considers the doses of all ASMs a patient is taking. Changes in concomitant ASM drug load after adding cenobamate were evaluated post-hoc in a subset of the open-label, phase 3 study. METHODS: Patients 18-70 years old with uncontrolled focal seizures taking 1-3 ASMs were enrolled. Total concomitant ASM drug load (not including cenobamate) was calculated by dividing the patient's prescribed dose for each ASM by its defined daily dose, per the World Health Organization, then summing the ratios. Changes in concomitant ASM drug load were measured from baseline in 3-month intervals up to 24 months by both total and class-specific ASM drug load. Subgroups of interest included: older adults (65-70 years), prior epilepsy-related surgery vs none, and baseline seizure frequency < 3 vs ≥ 3 seizures/28 days. RESULTS: Data from 240 patients were available (mean age 41.8 years, mean baseline drug load 3.57). Following cenobamate initiation, the mean concomitant ASM drug load was reduced by 29.4 % at Month 12 % and 31.8 % at Month 24. Reductions occurred in all assessed ASM drug classes, with the largest reduction in benzodiazepines (55.2 % at Month 24). Each assessed subgroup exceeded a 30 % reduction in concomitant ASM drug load at Month 24. Over 24 months, maintenance of ≥ 50 % response occurred in 89.3 %, 86.4 %, and 90.6 % of patients with low (-0.25 to <0), moderate (-0.59 to -0.25), or high (-3.3 to -0.59) numerical reductions in concomitant ASM drug load from baseline, respectively, compared with 86.0 % in patients with no change in drug load; maintenance of 100 % response occurred in 80.7 %, 84.3 %, and 70.0 % of patients with low, moderate, or high numerical reductions in concomitant ASM drug load, compared with 82.0 % in patients with no change. CONCLUSIONS: Adding cenobamate led to reduced mean concomitant ASM drug loads during 1 and 2 years of treatment. Reductions occurred regardless of ASM drug class, patient age, or epilepsy disease characteristics and did not impact maintenance of response rates.

Potential cost saving of Epoetin alfa in elective hip or knee surgery due to reduction in blood transfusions and their side effects: a discrete-event simulation model.

OBJECTIVES: Transfusion of allogeneic blood is still common in orthopedic surgery. This analysis evaluates from the perspective of a German hospital the potential cost savings of Epoetin alfa (EPO) compared to predonated autologous blood transfusions or to a nobloodconservationstrategy (allogeneic blood transfusion strategy)during elective hip and knee replacement surgery. METHODS: Individual patients (N = 50,000) were simulated based on data from controlled trials, the German DRG institute (InEK) and various publications and entered into a stochastic model (Monte-Carlo) of three treatment arms: EPO, preoperative autologous donation and nobloodconservationstrategy. All three strategies lead to a different risk for an allogeneic blood transfusion. The model focused on the costs and events of the three different procedures. The costs were obtained from clinical trial databases, the German DRG system, patient records and medical publications: transfusion (allogeneic red blood cells: €320/unit and autologous red blood cells: €250/unit), pneumonia treatment (€5,000), and length of stay (€300/day). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine which factors had an influence on the model's clinical and cost outcomes. RESULTS: At acquisition costs of €200/40,000 IU EPO is cost saving compared to autologous blood donation, and cost-effective compared to a nobloodconservationstrategy. The results were most sensitive to the cost of EPO, blood units and hospital days. CONCLUSIONS: EPO might become an attractive blood conservation strategy for anemic patients at reasonable costs due to the reduction in allogeneic blood transfusions, in the modeled incidence of transfusion-associated pneumonia andthe prolongedlength of stay.

Cost-effectiveness of a FISH assay for the diagnosis of melanoma in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a FISH assay in melanoma diagnosis in the USA. METHOD: A model was developed simulating the addition of FISH to the diagnosis of suspected melanoma. A decision analytic module simulated diagnosis using microscopic assessment alone versus addition of FISH (sensitivity: 92%; specificity: 94%). The authors simulated a clinical setting in which an initial excisional biopsy microscopic assessment (sensitivity: 73%; specificity: 78%) was followed by dermatopathologist assessment (sensitivity: 89%; specificity: 79%) for inconclusive results. Diagnostic strategies 1 and 2 added FISH to the initial and dermatopathologist assessments, respectively. A Markov outcomes module simulated patients' remaining lifetime, including treatment. RESULTS: In diagnostic strategies 1 and 2, the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was US$14,930 and 43,925, respectively, versus no FISH. Cost per misdiagnosis avoided was US$3292 and 3759, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity without FISH were both ≥88%; however, addition of FISH exceeded US$100,000/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: In specific clinical settings, FISH could be cost effective for melanoma diagnosis.

Lenalidomide for multiple myeloma: cost-effectiveness in patients with one prior therapy in England and Wales.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) versus DEX alone in managing multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have failed one prior therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual simulation model was designed to capture the costs and outcomes of LEN/DEX versus DEX therapy in relapsed refractory MM patients. MM009/010 efficacy data were adjusted for treatment cross-over and extrapolated to patient lifetime. Resource use for MM disease progression and adverse events were obtained from expert physicians and costed from the perspective of the National Health Service (England and UK) and included a patient access scheme for LEN. Utility values were obtained from published literature. RESULTS: The simulation model estimated an incremental improvement in time to progression of 9.5 months, an additional 3.2 life-years, and 2.2 quality adjusted life years (QALY) for LEN/DEX compared to DEX alone. Including the costs of therapy with the patient access scheme, adverse events, and disease follow-up, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £30,153/QALY for LEN/DEX compared to DEX alone in MM patients who have failed one prior therapy. CONCLUSION: LEN/DEX is a cost effective oncology therapy from the perspective of the NHS for MM patients with one prior treatment.

Economic modeling of new stent platforms to evaluate cost effectiveness: analysis of the TAXUS Liberté versus TAXUS express stents.

BACKGROUND: With the changing health care environment, cost effectiveness is an important adjunct to clinical investigation when assessing new medical devices. This study presents an economic model to evaluate cost effectiveness of coronary stents. METHODS: Markov modeling was developed comparing total costs (Medicare payer perspective) between TAXUS Liberté and TAXUS Express based on 3-year clinical outcomes from the TAXUS ATLAS Small Vessel and Long Lesion trials. RESULTS: The TAXUS Liberté 2.25-mm stent provided cost savings relative to TAXUS Express from a payer perspective ($17,605 vs. $20,281), driven by reduced target vessel revascularization (0.16 events/patient vs. 0.33 events/patient). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, TAXUS Liberté was less costly with fewer major adverse cardiac events in over 99% of parameter sets. The TAXUS Liberté Long (38 mm) stent was cost neutral relative to TAXUS Express from a payer perspective ($18,545 vs. $18,551) with fewer myocardial infarctions and cardiac deaths. Accounting for angiography-driven revascularizations, TAXUS Liberté 2.25 mm still provided cost savings relative to TAXUS Express ($16,822 vs. $19,139), although TAXUS Liberté Long was more expensive than TAXUS Express ($17,886 vs. $17,652). From a hospital perspective, TAXUS Liberté Long provided cost savings up to a price premium of $671/stent, driven by fewer stents employed per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the utility of economic modeling in assessing new stent platforms. TAXUS Liberté 2.25 mm is economically dominant relative to TAXUS Express when treating small vessels. TAXUS Liberté Long is cost neutral to modestly more costly than TAXUS Express 2.25 mm from a payer perspective.