Role of reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in older patients with de novo myelodysplastic syndromes: an international collaborative decision analysis.

PURPOSE: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are clonal hematopoietic disorders that are more common in patients aged ≥ 60 years and are incurable with conventional therapies. Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation is potentially curative but has additional mortality risk. We evaluated RIC transplantation versus nontransplantation therapies in older patients with MDS stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov decision model with quality-of-life utility estimates for different MDS and transplantation states was assessed. Outcomes were life expectancy (LE) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE). A total of 514 patients with de novo MDS aged 60 to 70 years were evaluated. Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, isolated 5q- syndrome, unclassifiable, and therapy-related MDS were excluded. Transplantation using T-cell depletion or HLA-mismatched or umbilical cord donors was also excluded. RIC transplantation (n = 132) stratified by IPSS risk was compared with best supportive care for patients with nonanemic low/intermediate-1 IPSS (n = 123), hematopoietic growth factors for patients with anemic low/intermediate-1 IPSS (n = 94), and hypomethylating agents for patients with intermediate-2/high IPSS (n = 165). RESULTS: For patients with low/intermediate-1 IPSS MDS, RIC transplantation LE was 38 months versus 77 months with nontransplantation approaches. QALE and sensitivity analysis did not favor RIC transplantation across plausible utility estimates. For intermediate-2/high IPSS MDS, RIC transplantation LE was 36 months versus 28 months for nontransplantation therapies. QALE and sensitivity analysis favored RIC transplantation across plausible utility estimates. CONCLUSION: For patients with de novo MDS aged 60 to 70 years, favored treatments vary with IPSS risk. For low/intermediate-1 IPSS, nontransplantation approaches are preferred. For intermediate-2/high IPSS, RIC transplantation offers overall and quality-adjusted survival benefit.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of using azacitidine vs. decitabine in treating patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: Azacitidine and decitabine are used to treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in the United States (US). This study sought to assess their relative cost-effectiveness. DESIGN AND METHODS: The authors developed a cost-effectiveness Markov model (1-month cycles) tracking hypothetical cohorts of MDS patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine over 2 years. The model used a US payer perspective and 2009 costs. Health states modeled included MDS with Transfusion Dependence, MDS with Transfusion Independence, Progression to Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), and Death. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes included cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost per life year (LY), cost per patient-month of transfusion independence, and cost per case of AML progression avoided. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on key model parameters. RESULTS: Compared to decitabine, azacitidine was associated with better survival (1.512 LYs vs 1.292), more QALYs gained (1.041 vs 0.870), more patient-months with transfusion independence (8.328 vs 6.224), and a greater proportion of patients avoiding progression to AML (50.9% vs 28.5%). Total per-patient costs over 2 years for azacitidine were lower than for decitabine ($150,322 vs $166, 212). LIMITATIONS: To inform and update the model over time, it will be important that randomized or observational clinical studies be conducted to directly compare azacitidine and decitabine, provide new information on how these medicines are used, and on their relative clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that azacitidine provides greater clinical benefit and costs less than decitabine across all key outcomes. These results accentuate the positive role of azacitidine in providing cost-effective care for MDS.

Feasibility of using recipients of health promotional newsletters for post-marketing surveillance.

Achieving an adequate sample size is one of the major difficulties in performing post-marketing observational studies of health outcomes in persons taking specific drug preparations. We assessed the feasibility of recruiting participants for such a study of Cardizem CD from approximately 400,000 U.S. recipients of a health promotion newsletter. A three-page questionnaire was sent to a 2.5% random sample (n = 10,000) of recipients, stratified by geographic region. After two mailings, 2779 (28%) returned the questionnaire. Of the 2779 respondents, 2132 (77%) reported having high blood pressure. Eighty-seven percent indicated a willingness to participate in a long-term prospective study. In a multivariate model, calcium channel blocker (CCB) use was associated with a history of coronary heart disease, duration of hypertension medication use greater than 1 year, a rating of good or excellent hypertension care, higher systolic blood pressure, higher education level, family history of cardiovascular disease, and history of smoking. These results indicate that self-reported CCB users may be at greater risk of cardiovascular heart disease and that it is feasible to use health promotion newsletters as a source of participants in prospective studies of cardiovascular disease.

Clinical assessment of a two-compartment Bayesian forecasting method for lidocaine.

The predictive performance of a two-compartment Bayesian forecasting method for lidocaine (L) was evaluated concurrently with lidocaine therapy in 46 hospitalized patients; 14 of these patients presented with congestive heart failure (CHF). Using an HP-85 microcomputer, demographic and dose-concentration information obtained during continuous lidocaine therapy was used to forecast subsequent lidocaine concentrations. One lidocaine concentration was obtained within each of the three intervals following initiation of lidocaine infusions: I1 (1-6 h), I2 (6-12 h), and I3 (greater than 12 h). Patients were categorized into 4 groups: (a) short-term infusions (less than 24 h) without CHF, (b) short-term infusions with CHF, (c) long-term infusions (greater than 24 h) without CHF, and (d) long-term infusions with CHF. The mean prediction errors (range -0.60-0.27) included zero (95% confidence limits) in all groups and suggested no bias. Forecasts of the I3 lidocaine concentrations were consistently more precise [lower mean absolute errors (MAE) and root mean squared errors] using the lidocaine concentration obtained during the 6-12-h interval (I2) than when the lidocaine concentration obtained at the earlier interval (I1) was used. The MAE was reduced by 20-40% when a single lidocaine concentration obtained during I2 was used as compared to I1. Precision was only slightly improved with the use of two lidocaine concentrations. We conclude that this Bayesian algorithm is unbiased and delivers acceptable precision in forecasting lidocaine concentrations.