Evaluation of Metronomic Therapy as a Low-Cost, Sustainable, Standard-of-Care Option in Desmoid Fibromatosis: Real-World Data From a Tertiary Care Center in India.

PURPOSE: Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) is a locally aggressive tumor with low mortality but significant morbidity. There is a lack of standard of care, and existing therapies are associated with significant barriers including access, cost, and toxicities. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the metronomic therapy (MT) in DF in a large, homogenous cohort from India. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved histologically confirmed DF cases treated with MT comprising vinblastine (6 mg) and methotrexate (15 mg) both once a week, and tamoxifen (40 mg/m2) in two divided doses once daily between 2002 and 2018. RESULTS: There were 315 patients with a median age of 27 years; the commonest site was extremity (142 of 315; 45.0%). There were 159 (50.1%) male patients. Of the 123 (39.0%) prior treated patients, 119 had surgery. Of 315 patients, 263 (83.5%) received treatment at our institute (MT-151, 77-local treatment, 9-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and 26 were observed). Among the MT cohort (n = 163, 61.2%), at a median follow-up of 36 (0.5-186) months, the 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 81.1% (95% CI, 74.3 to 88.4) and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.6 to 100), respectively. There were 35% partial responses. Ninety-two patients (56.4%) completed 1-year therapy, which was an independent prognosticator (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 0.177 [95% CI, 0.083 to 0.377]). MT was well tolerated. Predominant grade ≥3 toxicities were febrile neutropenia, 12 (7.4%) without any chemotoxicity-related death. The annual cost of MT was $130 US dollars. CONCLUSION: The novel, low-cost MT qualifies as one of the effective, less toxic, sustainable, standard-of-care options for the treatment of DF with global reach and merits wide recognition.

IAP Chemotherapy Regimen Is a Viable and Cost-effective Option in Children and Adolescents With Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Analysis With MAP Regimen on Toxicity and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and doxorubicin are integral components of chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of osteosarcoma. Choice of third agent high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) or an alkylating agent such as ifosfamide is debatable. The present study compared the impact of MAP (HDMTX-doxorubicin-cisplatin) and IAP (ifosfamide-doxorubicin-cisplatin) chemotherapy regimens on toxicity and survival in children and adolescents with osteosarcoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study including patients 18 years and younger with osteosarcoma during the study period. Clinical, demographic, chemotherapy regimen, and surgical details and treatment-related toxicity were retrieved from hospital medical records. Prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 102 patients included in the study, 59 (57.8%) and 43 (42.2%) patients were treated with MAP and IAP regimens, respectively. Two groups were comparable in terms of pretreatment characteristics and surgical treatment. Overall, 95.9% patients underwent limb salvage surgery. There was a statistically increased incidence in supportive care admissions and delay in starting the next cycle of chemotherapy in the MAP group. Among the MAP cohort, the 5-year OS and EFS were 62% and 55% compared with 47% and 44%, respectively, in the IAP cohort (P=0.143 and 0.316, respectively). On univariate and multivariate analyses, statistically significant factors affecting EFS of the whole group included tumor size, stage, site of metastasis, histologic necrosis, and type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: OS and EFS with both regimens were similar. However, the MAP regimen was associated with a statistically significant increase in incidence of supportive care admissions, delay in next cycle of chemotherapy, and predicted higher cost of treatment.

The Effect of Dose Escalation on the Cost-Effectiveness of Etanercept and Adalimumab with Methotrexate Among Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occasionally increase their doses of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, especially the monoclonal antibody origin drugs such as adalimumab and infliximab, after inadequate response to the initial dose. Previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various sequences of treatment for RA in the United States but have not considered the effect of dose escalation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of etanercept and adalimumab by incorporating the effect of dose escalation in moderate to severe RA patients. METHODS: We adapted the open-source Innovation and Value Initiative - Rheumatoid Arthritis model, version 1.0 to separately simulate the magnitude and time to dose escalation among RA patients taking adalimumab plus methotrexate or etanercept plus methotrexate from a societal perspective and lifetime horizon. An important assumption in the model was that dose escalation would increase treatment costs through its effect on the number of doses but would have no effect on effectiveness. We estimated the dose escalation parameters using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases. We fit competing parametric survival models to model time to dose escalation and used model diagnostics to compare the fit of the competing models. We measured the magnitude of dose escalation as the percentage increase in the number of doses conditional on dose escalation. Finally, we used the parameterized model to simulate treatment sequences beginning with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, etanercept) followed by nonbiologic treatment. RESULTS: In baseline models without dose escalation, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of the etanercept treatment sequence relative to the adalimumab treatment sequence was $85,593. Incorporating dose escalation increased treatment costs for each sequence, but costs increased more with adalimumab, lowering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to $9,001. At willingness-to-pay levels of $100,000, the etanercept sequence was more cost-effective compared with the adalimumab sequence, with probability 0.55 and 0.85 in models with and without dose escalation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation has important effects on cost-effectiveness and should be considered when comparing biologic medications for the treatment of RA. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by Amgen. When this work was conducted, Incerti and Jansen were employees of Precision Health Economics, which received financial support from Amgen. Maksabedian Hernandez, Collier, Gharaibeh, and Stolshek were employees and stockholders of Amgen, and Tkacz and Moore-Schiltz were employees of IBM Watson Health, which received financial support from Amgen. Some of the results of this work were previously presented as a poster at the 2019 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting, March 25-28, 2019, in San Diego, CA.

Therapeutic Options and Cost-Effectiveness for Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: During the last two decades, the therapeutic decisions and strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management have improved dramatically. Today, the therapeutic armamentarium is significantly augmented, and by using both old and new drugs, remission or low disease activity is a reasonable goal. The use of conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with biologic (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs has revolutionized RA treatment. Methotrexate administration is considered fundamental among other csDMARDs for the treatment of RA. It is recommended as the initial drug (monotherapy), or in combination with other csDMARDs, bDMARDs, and tsDMARDs in a step-up strategy. Furthermore, it can be used with other csDMARDs as initial combination-therapy. On the other hand, despite the fact that bDMARDs and ts DMARDs are highly efficacious and can also be used as monotherapy in certain cases, cost-effectiveness is still questionable when compared with csDMARDs. In this direction, the classic argument of utmost importance has to do with the most appropriate treatment strategy that shall be initially applied: csDMARD combination-therapy versus monotherapy, or step-up combinationtherapy with bDMARDs, especially tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFa) blockers. For this reason, a literature review of the most important csDMARDs combination and bDMARDs combination studies has been deployed. RECENT FINDINGS: The results showed that the triple csDMARDs therapy approach is more effective and less expensive. In addition, workers' productivity is higher than any other treatment options for RA. Triple-therapy constitutes a smart, efficacious, and significantly cheaper choice for RA therapeutic management.

Solitary serum methotrexate level 36 hours post high-dose methotrexate: A safe, efficacious, and cost-effective strategy to monitor methotrexate toxicities in childhood leukemia in resource-limited centers.

BACKGROUND: The standard practice during high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) to mitigate toxicity is to serially monitor levels till serum MTX < 0.01 µmol/L. Most resource-limited centers lack in-house access to MTX levels, and therefore repeated monitoring is costly and cumbersome. We studied the efficacy and safety of "solitary 36 hours post HD-MTX levels (MTX36 )." PROCEDURE: This prospective observational study consecutively enrolled children with ALL receiving HD-MTX. Cycles with unavailable MTX36 and MTX36  > 10 µmol/L were excluded. HD-MTX was administered over 24 hours (BFM-2009 protocol) with 12 hours of prehydration. MTX36 were performed at other centers. Leucovorin was given in six hourly doses 36 hours post HD-MTX. Hydration was continued until the last dose of leucovorin. MTX toxicities, including change of creatinine from baseline at 36 hours (∆Cr36 ), were noted. Two groups depending on MTX36 (≤1 µmol/L vs > 1 µmol/L) received six versus eight doses of leucovorin, and toxicities were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-nine children with median age five years (1-11) who received 100 HD-MTX cycles with a median MTX dose of 3 g/m2 (2-5) were analyzed. The median MTX36 level was 1.165 µmol/L (0.1-7.32). Toxicities of HD-MTX (CTCAE-4.0): transaminitis-22%; creatinine elevation ≥ 1.25 times baseline-24%; cytopenias-16%; mucositis-17%; acute kidney injury (AKI)-6%. All toxicities were ≤CTCAE grade 3. Creatinine elevation, AKI, and mucositis were significantly higher in the group with higher MTX36 . There was no correlation (r = 0.3) between ∆Cr36 and MTX36 . MTX36 was thrice more economical than the standard protocol. CONCLUSION: MTX36 is a potential cost-effective, efficacious, and safe limited sample strategy to monitor HD-MTX, particularly in centers where in-house MTX levels are unavailable.

A novel etanercept biosimilar Anbainuo plus methotrexate exhibits increased cost-effectiveness compared to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in treating rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anbainuo (ABN) plus methotrexate (MTX) (ABN + MTX) versus conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.Forty-eight moderate to severe RA patients underwent ABN + MTX or cDMARDs treatment were consecutively enrolled and assigned to ABN + MTX group (n = 26) and control group (n = 22). Patients were followed up and their disease activity and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated at 3rd month, 6th month and 12th month after initiation of treatment. Treatment costs of 2 groups were calculated, then pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed.ABN + MTX increased drug cost and total cost while decreased indirect cost compared with cDMARDs after 12-month treatment. ABN + MTX group gained additional 0.22 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥104,293.6 per QALY after treatment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that rising ABN price by 20% produced an ICER of ¥130,403.6 per QALY, which was still lower than 3 times of the mean gross domestic product (GDP) per capita during the same period in China (¥165,960). Besides, ABN + MTX was more cost-effective in severe RA patients compared to moderate RA patients.ABN + MTX is cost-effective in treating moderate to severe RA patients compared with cDMARDs, although the total cost of ABN + MTX is relatively higher.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR. METHODS: Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations. RESULTS: Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Cost-Effectiveness of Early Treatment with Originator Biologics or Their Biosimilars After Methotrexate Failure in Patients with Established Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supports the clinical benefits of early aggressive biologic treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but the cost-effectiveness of early intervention with originator biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or their biosimilars has not been well studied. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and utilities for patients with established RA who do not respond to methotrexate (MTX) therapy. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing a standard intervention pathway (addition of originator biologic TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 12 months) and two early intervention pathways (either addition of originator biologic TNFis or addition of biosimilar TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 6 months). RESULTS: Early intervention with an originator biologic TNFi at 6 months was associated with increases in total lifetime costs of £1692 and utilities of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient compared with standard intervention at 12 months, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,335/QALY. Early intervention with a biosimilar TNFi increased costs by £70 and utilities by 0.10 QALYs per patient and was associated with an ICER of £713/QALY. CONCLUSION: Switching from MTX monotherapy to combination therapy with either an originator biologic or biosimilar TNFis at 6 months after csDMARD failure in patients with RA was cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis, clinical aspects and socio-economic determinants in Pakistani patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate literature on rheumatoid arthritis disease in Pakistani patients, to have an understanding about its epidemiology, clinical aspects and socio-economic determinants. METHODS: The review study was conducted from December 2017, to May 2018. An online search was conducted in international and local health databases using appropriate search keywords as well as scanning reference lists of related articles. Literature published after year 2000 that reported epidemiological, demographic, clinical and socioeconomic data of Pakistani rheumatoid arthritis patients was included. Meta-analysis was performed where possible. This systematic review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO (CRD42018090582). RESULTS: Of the 334 research articles found, 29 (8.7%) were selected. Patients were mostly females, but no study explored impact of disease on household and family role functioning of rheumatoid arthritis-affected women in Pakistan. Most patients were uneducated (55%) and unemployed; had low disease knowledge (N = 149, 74.5%) and poor adherence to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (N = 23, 23%). Point prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis reported from Karachi was high at 26.9%. Moderate disease activity, i.e., 4.5}0.7 and mild functional disability (N = 66, 51.6%) were seen in RA patients. Almost half (N = 799, 46.9%) had comorbidities. Almost a fifth proportion of RA patients had dyslipidaemia as a comorbidity (N = 134, 16.77%) and higher cardiovascular risk score as modifiable risk factor. Undiagnosed depression (N = 134, 58.3%) and low bone mineral density (N = 93, 40.6%) were reported in RA patients. Direct monthly treatment cost of disease was significantly high considering patients' socio-economic status, i.e., USD 16.47 - 100.68. Most commonly used drug was methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data on Pakistani rheumatoid arthritis patients' demographic and socio-economic parameters, especially the gender element.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of medical management versus conservative surgery for early tubal pregnancy.

STUDY QUESTION: Is conservative surgery (laparoscopic salpingotomy) cost-effective, using fertility as the endpoint compared with medical management (Methotrexate) in women with an early tubal pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Conservative surgery appeared slightly, but not statistically significantly, more effective than medical management but also more costly. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Women with an early tubal pregnancy treated with medical therapy (Methotrexate) or conservative surgery (laparoscopic salpingotomy) have comparable future intrauterine pregnancy rates by natural conception. Also, cost-minimisation studies have shown that medical therapy was less expensive than conservative surgery, but there is no cost-effectiveness study comparing these two treatments with fertility as the endpoint. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A multicentre randomised controlled trial-based (DEMETER study) cost-effectiveness analysis of conservative surgery compared with medical therapy in women with an early tubal pregnancy was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Included women had an ultrasound that confirmed an early tubal pregnancy. They were randomly allocated to conservative surgery or to medical therapy. The study clinical outcome was the intrauterine pregnancy rate. The payer's perspective was considered. Costs of conservative surgery and medical therapy were compared. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Missing variables were imputed using the fully conditional method. To characterise uncertainty and to provide a summary of it, a non-parametric bootstrap resampling was executed and cost-effectiveness accessibility curves were constructed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At baseline, costs per woman in the conservative surgery group and in the medical therapy group were 2627€ and 2463€, respectively, with a statistically significant difference of +164€. Conservative surgery resulted in a marginally, but non-significant (P = 0.46), higher future intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to medical therapy (0.700 vs. 0.649); leading, after bootstrap, to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1299€ (95% CI = -29 252; +29 919). Acceptability curves showed that conservative surgery could be considered a cost-effective treatment at a threshold of 3201€ for one additional future intrauterine pregnancy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation was that monetary valuation was carried out using 2016 euros while the DEMETER study took place from 2005 to 2009. Anyway, the results would not have been very different given the marginal changes in the health insurance reimbursement tariffs during this period. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Conservative surgery can be considered a cost-effective treatment, if the additional cost of 3201€ per additional future intrauterine pregnancy is an acceptable financial effort for the payer. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 00137982.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate or After 1 or 2 TNF Inhibitors from a U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Treatment cycling with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), is common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can result in reduced clinical efficacy and increased economic burden. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the economic effect of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) treatment directly after methotrexate (MTX) in the MTX-inadequate responder population, or after MTX and 1 TNFi (adalimumab [ADA] or etanercept [ETN]) or 2 TNFi (ADA and ETN) in TNF-inadequate responder patients with RA, from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A decision-tree economic model was used to evaluate costs over 2 years. Treatment response was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were derived from U.S. prescribing information for monotherapy and combination therapy. Safety event rates were sourced from a meta-analysis. It was assumed that 75% of patients switched therapy after an adverse event or lack of response. Cost inputs included drugs, monitoring and administration (including physician visits), health care utilization, and treatment for adverse events. The population comprised all organization members (i.e., RA and non-RA members); RA patients receiving TNFi were estimated using epidemiologic data. Results were based on an organization size of 1 million. Economic endpoints were total 2-year costs, costs per member per month (PMPM), and costs per ACR20/50 responder. RESULTS: 1,321 patients were included for analysis. Based on ACR20 switch criteria and either 100% or 50% monotherapy rates for all treatments, total 2-year costs and costs PMPM were lower for patients receiving tofacitinib as second-line therapy after MTX and as third-line therapy after MTX and 1 TNFi; costs were highest for patients who cycled through 2 TNFi. Similar trends were observed for switch criteria based on ACR50 response and addition of 20% rebates for ADA and ETN and 0% for tofacitinib, although differences were mitigated slightly. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment strategy with tofacitinib as either second- or third-line therapy after MTX may be a lower cost treatment option, compared with fourth-line introduction of tofacitinib after cycling through 2 TNFi following MTX. DISCLOSURES: All aspects of this study were funded by Pfizer. Claxton was an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, at the time of this study. Taylor is an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, The University of York, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct this study. Soonasra, Bourret, and Gerber are employees of Pfizer and hold stock/stock options in Pfizer. A previous iteration of the data reported in this manuscript (before adjustment for recent drug price increases) was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 28th Annual Meeting and Expo; April 19-22, 2016; held in San Francisco, CA.

Alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept or rituximab following failure of initial TNFi in rheumatoid arthritis: the SWITCH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common autoimmune disease in the UK, is a chronic systemic inflammatory arthritis that affects 0.8% of the UK population. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not an alternative class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are comparable to rituximab in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with RA in whom initial tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD and methotrexate (MTX) therapy failed because of inefficacy. DESIGN: Multicentre, Phase III, open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative TNFi and abatacept with that of rituximab (and background MTX therapy). Eligible consenting patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio using minimisation incorporating a random element. Minimisation factors were centre, disease duration, non-response category and seropositive/seronegative status. SETTING: UK outpatient rheumatology departments. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with RA and were receiving MTX, but had not responded to two or more conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies and had shown an inadequate treatment response to a first TNFi. INTERVENTIONS: Alternative TNFi, abatacept or rituximab (and continued background MTX). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was absolute reduction in the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures over 48 weeks were additional measures of disease activity, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, radiographic measures, safety and toxicity. LIMITATIONS: Owing to third-party contractual issues, commissioning challenges delaying centre set-up and thus slower than expected recruitment, the funders terminated the trial early. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and December 2014, 149 patients in 35 centres were registered, of whom 122 were randomised to treatment (alternative TNFi, n = 41; abatacept, n = 41; rituximab, n = 40). The numbers, as specified, were analysed in each group [in line with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle]. Comparing alternative TNFi with rituximab, the difference in mean reduction in DAS28 at 24 weeks post randomisation was 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 1.05] in the ITT patient population and -0.58 (95% CI -1.72 to 0.55) in the per protocol (PP) population. Corresponding results for the abatacept and rituximab comparison were 0.04 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.79) in the ITT population and -0.15 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.98) in the PP population. General improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life and the patients' general health was apparent over time, with no notable differences between treatment groups. There was a marked initial improvement in the patients' global assessment of pain and arthritis at 12 weeks across all three treatment groups. Switching to alternative TNFi may be cost-effective compared with rituximab [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £5332.02 per quality-adjusted life-year gained]; however, switching to abatacept compared with switching to alternative TNFi is unlikely to be cost-effective (ICER £253,967.96), but there was substantial uncertainty in the decisions. The value of information analysis indicated that further research would be highly valuable to the NHS. Ten serious adverse events in nine patients were reported; none were suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Two patients died and 10 experienced toxicity. FUTURE WORK: The results will add to the randomised evidence base and could be included in future meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: How to manage first-line TNFi treatment failures remains unresolved. Had the trial recruited to target, more credible evidence on whether or not either of the interventions were non-inferior to rituximab may have been provided, although this remains speculative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Evaluation of a clinical pharmacogenetics model to predict methotrexate response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Variability of response to treatment hinders successful management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Consequently, a clinical pharmacogenetics model for predicting response to methotrexate (CP-MTX) has been previously proposed that includes four clinical variables (disease activity, sex, the presence of rheumatoid factor and smoking status) and four SNPs (rs2236225, rs17602729, rs1127354, and rs2372536) in genes of the folate pathway. It showed good performance, but failed to attract attention, likely, in relation with lack of clear clinical benefit. Here, we have revised the value of the CP-MTX model directly addressing its clinical benefit by focusing on the expected benefit-cost of the predictions. In addition, our study included a much larger number of RA patients (n = 720) in MTX monotherapy than previous studies. Benefit of CP-MTX prediction was defined as the patients that would have received combination therapy as first treatment because they were correctly predicted as non-responders to MTX monotherapy. In contrast, cost of CP-MTX prediction was defined as the responder patients that were wrongly predicted as non-responders. Application of CP-MTX predictions to our patients showed a good benefit-cost relationship, with half of the 66.7% non-responders to MTX monotherapy rightly directed to alternative treatments (a benefit of 33.3%) at the cost of 8.5% wrongly predicted non-responders. These benefits-costs were consistent with reanalysis of the previously published studies. Therefore, predictions of CP-MTX showed a good benefit-cost relationship for informing MTX prescription.

Cost comparison by treatment arm and center-level variations in cost and inpatient days on the phase III high-risk B acute lymphoblastic leukemia trial AALL0232.

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) develops and implements multi-institutional clinical trials with the primary goal of assessing the efficacy and safety profile of treatment regimens for various pediatric cancers. However, the monetary costs of treatment regimens are not measured. AALL0232 was a COG randomized phase III trial for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia that found that dexamethasone (DEX) was a more effective glucocorticoid than prednisone (PRED) in patients younger than 10 years, but PRED was equally effective and less toxic in older patients. In addition, high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) led to better survival than escalating doses of methotrexate (C-MTX). Cost data from the Pediatric Health Information System database were merged with clinical data from the COG AALL0232 trial. Total and component costs were compared between treatment arms and across hospitals. Inpatient costs were higher in the HD-MTX and DEX arms when compared to the C-MTX and PRED arms at the end of therapy. There was no difference in cost between these arms at last follow-up. Considerable variation in total costs existed across centers to deliver the same therapy that was driven by differences in inpatient days and pharmacy costs. The more effective regimens were found to be more expensive during therapy but were ultimately cost-neutral in longer term follow-up. The variations in cost across centers suggest an opportunity to standardize resource utilization for patients receiving similar therapies, which could translate into reduced healthcare expenditures.

Treatment of sporadic Burkitt lymphoma in adults, a retrospective comparison of four treatment regimens.

Burkitt lymphoma is an aggressive B cell malignancy accounting for 1-2% of all adult lymphomas. Treatment with dose-intensive, multi-agent chemotherapy is effective but associated with considerable toxicity. In this observational study, we compared real-world efficacy, toxicity, and costs of four frequently employed treatment strategies for Burkitt lymphoma: the Lymphome Malins B (LMB), the Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM), the HOVON, and the CODOX-M/IVAC regimens. We collected data from 147 adult patients treated in eight referral centers. Following central pathology assessment, 105 of these cases were accepted as Burkitt lymphoma, resulting in the following treatment groups: LMB 36 patients, BFM 19 patients, HOVON 29 patients, and CODOX-M/IVAC 21 patients (median age 39 years, range 14-74; mean duration of follow-up 47 months). There was no significant difference between age, sex ratio, disease stage, or percentage HIV-positive patients between the treatment groups. Five-year progression-free survival (69%, p = 0.966) and 5-year overall survival (69%, p = 0.981) were comparable for all treatment groups. Treatment-related toxicity was also comparable with only hepatotoxicity seen more frequently in the CODOX/M-IVAC group (p = 0.004). Costs were determined by the number of rituximab gifts and the number of inpatients days. Overall, CODOX-M/IVAC had the most beneficial profile with regards to costs, treatment duration, and percentage of patients completing planned treatment. We conclude that the four treatment protocols for Burkitt lymphoma yield nearly identical results with regards to efficacy and safety but differ in treatment duration and costs. These differences may help guide future choice of treatment.

Cost-utility analysis of certolizumab pegol in combination with methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Greece.

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of certolizumab pegol (CZP), a pegylated fc-free anti-TNF, as add-on therapy to methotrexate (MTX) versus etanercept, adalimumab, or golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not responding to the conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). A Markov model (6-month cycle length) assessed health and cost outcomes of CZP versus other anti-TNFs recommended for RA in Greece over a patient's lifetime. Following discontinuation of first-line anti-TNF, patients switched to second anti-TNF and then to a biologic with another mode of action. Sequential use of csDMARDs followed third biologic. Clinical data and utilities were extracted from published literature. Analysis was conducted from third-party payer perspective in Greece. Costs (drug acquisition, administration, monitoring, and patient management) were considered for 2014. Results presented are incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) ascertained robustness of base-case findings. Base-case analysis indicated that CZP+MTX was more costly and more effective compared with Etanercept+MTX (base-case ICER: €3,177 per QALY), whilst versus adalimumab/golimumab, CZP was dominant (less costly, more effective). For all comparisons, CZP treatment resulted in greater improvements in life expectancy and QALYs. PSA indicated that at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €34,000/QALY, CZP+MTX was associated with a 71.6, 97.9, or 99.2% probability of being cost-effective versus etanercept, golimumab, or adalimumab, respectively, in combination with MTX. This analysis demonstrates CZP+MTX to be a cost-effective alternative over Etanercept+MTX and a dominant option over Adalimumab+MTX and Golimumab+MTX for management of RA in Greece.

Certolizumab Pegol for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis Following Inadequate Response to a TNF-α Inhibitor: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (UCB Pharma) of certolizumab pegol (CZP; Cimzia®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following inadequate response to a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for CZP was based predominantly on six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of CZP against placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of CZP against the comparators within the scope; therefore, the company performed a network meta-analysis (NMA). The company's NMA concluded that CZP had a similar efficacy to that of its comparators. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of CZP versus comparator biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service for three decision problems, each of which followed an inadequate response to a TNFi. These were (1) a comparison against rituximab (RTX) in combination with methotrexate (MTX); (2) a comparison against bDMARDs when RTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event; and (3) a comparison against bDMARDs when MTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event. Results from the company's economic evaluation showed that CZP resulted in a similar number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) produced at similar or lower costs compared with comparator bDMARDs. The commercial-in-confidence patient access schemes for abatacept and tocilizumab could not be incorporated by the company, but were incorporated by the ERG in a confidential appendix for the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company estimated that the addition of CZP before RTX in a sequence for patients who could receive MTX produced more QALYs at an increased cost, with a cost per QALY of £33,222. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that did not change the conclusions reached based on the company's economic evaluation in relation to the comparison with bDMARDs. The ERG estimated that where CZP replaced RTX, CZP was dominated, as it produced fewer QALYs at an increased cost. The AC concluded that there was little difference in effectiveness between CZP and comparator bDMARDs and that equivalence among bDMARDs could be accepted. The AC consequently recommended CZP plus MTX for people for whom RTX is contraindicated or not tolerated and CZP monotherapy for people for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated. The AC concluded that CZP plus MTX could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources when RTX plus MTX is a treatment option.

Are different methotrexate regimens as first line therapy for low risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia more cost effective than the dactinomycin regimen used in GOG 0174?

OBJECTIVES: Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 0174 compared weekly intramuscular methotrexate (MTX) with biweekly pulsed intravenous dactinomycin (Act-D) as single-agent chemotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). Act-D had a higher rate of initial complete response (CR) (70% vs. 53%, p=0.01), but multi-day regimens of MTX have higher historic success rates. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of Act-D vs. MTX per GOG 0174 and explored multi-day MTX regimens. METHODS: A cost effectiveness decision model was constructed with data from GOG 0174. Outcome was cost per first-line treatment success expressed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Front-line failures were assumed to receive cross-over single agent therapy, second line failures; multi-agent chemotherapy. GOG 0174 had no quality of life (QOL) evaluation, so equal QOL (utility 1.0) was assumed but varied in sensitivity analysis. A second exploratory model included 5-day and 8-day MTX regimens. RESULTS: Act-D ($18,505) was more expensive compared to weekly MTX ($8950) with an ICER of $56,215 per first-line treatment success compared to weekly MTX. Small decreases in QOL dramatically increased the ICER during sensitivity analysis. Models with multi-day MTX regimens were also more cost-effective than Act-D. If effectiveness was redefined as avoidance of multi-agent chemotherapy, weekly MTX was more effective. CONCLUSIONS: With a complete cure rate for low-risk GTN regardless of initial agent, our model supports provider hesitation toward first line Act-D for low risk GTN. While Act-D is more effective for first line treatment success, it is more costly, and does not decrease rate of multi-agent chemotherapy use.

Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness Between Actinomycin D Versus Methotrexate-Folinic Acid in the Treatment of Low-Risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness between actinomycin D (Act-D) and methotrexate-folinic acid (MTX-FA) in the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) in the Thai population. STUDY DESIGN: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective. A decision tree model was developed comparing 2 alternative treatment options: initial 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA. Treatment would be switched to another regimen in case of resistance. The outcome of interest is number of days to remission. Clinical data was obtained from our previous study in which Act-D demonstrated 100% remission rates as compared to 73.6% for MTX-FA. Cost of treatment data, which includes chemotherapeutics, accessory medications, laboratory tests, and hospital fees, was obtained from a university hospital. Patient-related travel cost and opportunity cost due to absence from work were also included. All costs were calculated to 2015 base year. RESULT: Costs per treatment cycle were $308.01 and $227.20 US dollars (USD) for 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA, respectively. Expected time toward treatment completion for Act-D was 12.6 days shorter than for MTX-FA. Expected costs toward remission for initial treatment with Act-D and MTX-FA were $1,078.04 and $1,064.56 USD, respectively, i.e., an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion. After sensitivity analysis, remission rate of lower than 72% would make initial treatment with MTX-FA more expensive than with Act-D. CONCLUSION: Treatment costs of low-risk GTN are almost equal between the 2 treatment options with different time to remission. Initial treatment with MTX-FA is slightly less expensive, but there is longer time to remission. The ICER of initial treatment with Act-D over MTX-FA is $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion.