A modeling framework for the economic evaluation of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials.Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions.Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences.Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

Custo-utilidade de terapias-alvo comparadas à dacarbazina para o tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não-cirúrgico e metastático no Sistema Único de Saúde do Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of isolated and combined targeted therapy regimens compared to dacarbazine for first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states (no progression, progression and death), monthly duration cycle and 10-year time horizon was constructed to compare targeted therapy regimens (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib and dabrafenib/trametinib) with dacarbazine chemotherapy under the Brazilian public health perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean cost was R$5662.50 ($1490.13) for dacarbazine, R$175 937.18 (46 299.26) for vemurafenib, R$167 461.70 ($44 068.87) for dabrafenib, R$425 901 ($112 079.21) for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and R$411 799.81 ($108 368.37) for dabrafenib/trametinib, whereas QALY was 0.91 for dacarbazine, 1.08 for vemurafenib, 1.12 for dabrafenib, 1.64 for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and 1.56 for dabrafenib/trametinib. The ICUR was estimated from R$572 165.76 ($150 569.94) to R$1 012 524.56 ($266 453.83) per patient, and the most impactful parameters were risk of progression and death, and treatment cost. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of targeted therapies in the Brazilian public health system would produce an additional expenditure of at least 19 times the national GDP per capita to increase in one year the quality-adjusted survival of each patient with advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Carcinogenicity assessment of baricitinib in Tg.rasH2 mice and Sprague-Dawley (Crl:CD) rats.

Baricitinib is a potent and selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor, and is approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active RA in adults in Europe, Japan, and other countries. This study evaluated the carcinogenic potential of baricitinib in Tg. rasH2 mice and Sprague-Dawley (Crl:CD) rats. Baricitinib was administered daily by oral gavage to Crl:CD rats for up to 94 weeks (dose levels of 0, 1, 3, or 8 mg/kg for males and 0, 3, 8, or 25 mg/kg for females) and to Tg. rasH2 mice for 26 weeks (dose levels of 0, 15, 40, or 300 mg/kg for males and 0, 10, 30, or 150 mg/kg for females). Baricitinib was well tolerated with no incidence of compound-related neoplasms at any dose levels in rats and mice. In mice, non-neoplastic events observed were bone marrow hypocellularity and increased adipocytes. In rats, baricitinib administration was associated with a dose-dependent increase in survival, with a decreased incidence of neoplasm (hematopoietic and mammary), potentially secondary to drug-related decreased weight gain. The incidence of proliferative changes such as neoplastic and hyperplastic lesions in the mammary glands of females and in the livers of males and females also decreased. In conclusion, baricitinib is not considered to be carcinogenic.

Incidence, course, and management of toxicities associated with cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in the coBRIM study.

Background: In the coBRIM phase III trial, the addition of cobimetinib, an MEK inhibitor, to vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, significantly improved progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; P < 0.0001] and overall survival (HR, 0.70; P = 0.005) in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Here, we report on the incidence, course, and management of key adverse events (AEs) in the coBRIM study. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice a day) and either cobimetinib (60 mg once a day, 21 days on/7 days off) or placebo. In addition to standard safety evaluations, patients underwent regular ophthalmic, cardiac, and dermatologic surveillance examinations. Results: Of 495 patients recruited to the study, 493 patients received treatment and constituted the safety population (cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, 247; vemurafenib, 246). At data cut-off (30 September 2015), median follow-up was 18.5 months. Nearly every patient experienced an AE. In patients who received cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, the frequency of grade ≥3 AEs was higher than in patients who received vemurafenib alone (75% versus 61%). Most AEs, including grade ≥3 AEs, occurred within the first treatment cycle. After the first cycle (28 days), the incidence of common AEs (rash, diarrhoea, photosensitivity, elevated creatine phosphokinase, serous retinopathy, pyrexia, and liver laboratory abnormalities) decreased substantially over time. Most AEs were managed conservatively by supportive care measures, dose modifications of study treatment, and, occasionally, permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: These data indicate that most AEs arising from treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib generally occur early in the treatment course, are mild or moderate and are manageable by patient monitoring, dose modification and supportive care. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01689519.

How effective are the ESC/EAS and 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines in treating dyslipidemia? Lessons from a lipid clinic.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data regarding the attainment of lipid-lowering treatment goals according to the recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. The aim of the present study was to assess how applicable these 2013 recommendations are in the setting of an Outpatient University Hospital Lipid Clinic. METHODS: This was a retrospective (from 1999 to 2013) observational study including 1000 consecutive adults treated for hyperlipidemia and followed up for ≥3 years. Comparisons for the applicability of current European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) and recent ACC/AHA guidelines were performed. RESULTS: Achievement rates of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets set by ESC/EAS were 21%, 44% and 62% among patients at very high, high and moderate cardiovascular risk, respectively, receiving statin monotherapy. Among individuals on high-intensity statins only 47% achieved the anticipated ≥50% LDL-C reduction, i.e. the ACC/AHA target. The corresponding rate was significantly greater among those on statin + ezetimibe (76%, p < 0.05). Likewise, higher rates of LDL-C target attainment according to ESC/EAS guidelines were observed in patients on statin + ezetimibe compared with statin monotherapy (37, 50 and 71% for the three risk groups, p < 0.05 for the very high risk group). CONCLUSION: The application of the ACC/AHA guidelines may be associated with undertreatment of high risk patients due to suboptimal LDL-C response to high-intensity statins in clinical practice. Adding ezetimibe substantially increases the rate of the ESC/EAS LDL-C target achievement together with the rate of LDL-C lowering response suggested by the ACC/AHA.

Cholesterol treatment patterns and cardiovascular clinical outcomes associated with colesevelam HCl and ezetimibe.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceuticals are commonly used to help at-risk patients reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in an effort to prevent atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Although both the cholesterol inhibitor ezetimibe and the newer generation bile acid sequestrant colesevelam hydrochloride (HCl) effectively reduce LDL-C levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia, real-world evidence based on clinical outcomes is lacking. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of healthcare insurance claims data from a large national healthcare payer was conducted to evaluate outcomes within 12 months among 2,067 patients with hypercholesterolemia after the initiation of treatment with colesevelam HCl (679 patients) as compared with ezetimibe (1,388 patients). Outcomes evaluated were (1) composite cardiovascular event which included myocardial infarction, stroke, angina, or revascularization and (2) macrovascular complication event which was a wider-encompassing measure that included all composite cardiovascular outcomes along with atherosclerosis, aneurysm, embolism, and peripheral vascular disease. RESULTS: An adjusted logistic regression model found lower odds of a composite cardiovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.97) within 12 months for subjects initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl compared with subjects initiating treatment with ezetimibe. The unadjusted OR was slightly lower (OR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.30-0.90). The odds ratio for the wider-encompassing macrovascular complication event occurring within 12 months of initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl or ezetimibe was not statistically significant (OR 0.821, 95 % CI 0.49-1.35). DISCUSSION: The evidence of lower risk for composite cardiovascular event rates for subjects treated with colesevelam HCl compared with those treated with ezetimibe suggests the potential need to consider risk of clinical outcomes, in addition to LDL-C levels, in real-world practice when choosing a pharmaceutical treatment.

Impact of the ENHANCE trial on the use of ezetimibe in the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that the use of ezetimibe increased rapidly with different patterns between the United States (US) and Canada prior to the landmark Ezetimibe and Simvastatin in Hypercholesterolemia Enhance Atherosclerosis Regression (ENHANCE) trial, which was reported in January 2008, and failed to show that the drug slowed the progression of atherosclerosis. What is not known is how practice in the 2 countries changed after the ENHANCE trial. We examined ezetimibe use trends in the US and Canada before and after the reporting of the ENHANCE trial. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective, time-series analysis using the data collected by IMS Health in the US and CompuScript in Canada from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2009. The main outcome measure was monthly number of prescriptions for ezetimibe-containing products. RESULTS: The monthly number of ezetimibe prescriptions/100,000 population rose from 6 to 1,082 in the US from November 2002 to January 2008, then significantly declined to 572/100,000 population by December 2009 after the release of the ENHANCE trial, a decrease of 47.1% (P < .001). In contrast, in Canada, use continuously rose from 2 to 495/100,000 population from June 2003 to December 2009 (P = .2). United States expenditures totaled $2.24 billion in 2009. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe remains commonly used in both the US and Canada. Ezetimibe use has decreased in the US post-ENHANCE, whereas use has gradually but steadily increased in Canada. The diverging patterns of ezetimibe use in the US and Canada require further investigation, as they reveal that a common evidence base is eliciting very different utilization patterns in neighboring countries.

Warnings without guidance: patient responses to an FDA warning about ezetimibe.

BACKGROUND: In January 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communicated concerns about the efficacy of ezetimibe, but did not provide clear clinical guidance, and substantial media attention ensued. We investigated the proportion of patients who discontinued therapy and switched to a clinically appropriate alternative after the FDA communication. METHODS: Using claims data from a national pharmacy benefits manager, we created a rolling cohort of new users of ezetimibe between January 2006 and August 2008 and created a supply diary for each patient in the year after cohort entry. A patient was identified as nonpersistent if a gap of 90 days was seen in the diary. Using segmented linear regression, we compared rates of nonpersistence before and after the FDA communication and assessed patient-level characteristics associated with discontinuation. Among nonpersistent patients, we determined whether a patient made a clinically appropriate switch in the subsequent 90 days by adding a new cholesterol-lowering medication or by increasing the dose of an existing one. We used a weighted t test to compare the rates of appropriate switching before and after the communication. RESULTS: Among 867,027 new ezetimibe users, 407,006 (46.9%) were nonpersistent in the first year. After the FDA communication, the monthly level of ezetimibe nonpersistence increased by 5.7 percentage points (P<0.0001). Younger patients, those who lived in low-income zip codes, and female patients were less likely to discontinue therapy (P<0.0001 for all). Among nonpersistent patients, rates of clinically appropriate switching increased from 10.8% before to 16.5% after the FDA warning (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial increase in ezetimibe nonpersistence rates was seen after an FDA communication regarding its efficacy and following associated media attention, and a small proportion of patients made a clinically appropriate switch after discontinuation. Further consideration is needed to deliver messages that promote appropriate use of chronic therapy rather than simply reduce use.

Nanocarrier for the enhanced bioavailability of a cardiovascular agent: in vitro, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic and stability assessment.

The goals of the current study were to develop and characterize a nanoemulsion of ezetimibe, evaluate its stability, lipid lowering and pharmacokinetic profile. Solubility of the drug was estimated in various oils and surfactants. Existence of nanoemulsion region was confirmed by plotting phase diagrams. Various thermodynamic stability and dispersibility tests were performed on the formulations chosen from phase diagram. Percentage transmittance, refractive index, viscosity, droplet size and zeta potential of the optimized formulations were determined. Dialysis bag method was employed to study the release rate. The formulation selected for bioavailability estimation contained Capryol 90 (10%, v/v), Crempophor EL (11.25%, v/v), Transcutol(®) P (33.75%, v/v), and double distilled water (45%, v/v). The release rate from the nanoemulsion was highly significant (p<0.001) in contrast to the drug suspension. The level of total cholesterol in the group receiving nanoemulsion CF1 was found to be highly significant (p<0.001) in comparison to the group receiving drug suspension. Bioavailability studies in rats revealed superior absorption of ezetimibe from nanoemulsion as compared to the marketed formulation and drug suspension. The shelf life of the nanoemulsion was estimated to be 18.53 months. The present study corroborated nanoemulsion to be a promising choice to improve the bioavailability of ezetimibe.

The cost effectiveness of statin therapies in Spain in 2010, after the introduction of generics and reference prices.

BACKGROUND: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are the first-line drugs for use in the reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Generic statins could change the cost effectiveness of statin therapies in Spain, and more population groups could be included in the recommendations for reduction of cholesterol levels based on cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were: (i) to assess the cost effectiveness of available statins for the reduction of LDL-C levels in Spain in 2010, after the introduction of generics and reference prices; (ii) to assess the cost effectiveness of combination therapy using a statin plus cholestyramine or ezetimibe; and (iii) to estimate the mean cost per patient to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program (Adult Treatment Panel-III) therapeutic objectives. METHODS: The following treatments were evaluated: rosuvastatin 5-20 mg/day; atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin 10-40 mg/day; lovastatin and fluvastatin 20-80 mg/day; and combination therapy with a statin plus either cholestyramine 12-24 g/day or ezetimibe 10 mg/day. The cost effectiveness was evaluated in terms of cost per percentage point reduction in LDL-C, comparing the annual treatment costs with the effectiveness in reducing LDL-C. Treatment costs included those for medications (2010 wholesale prices), control measures, and treatment of adverse drug effects. The effectiveness of statins was estimated by developing a meta-analysis of clinical trials published between 1993 and 2005 that met several inclusion criteria. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to assess the efficiency of individual statin and combination therapies in reducing LDL-C levels. RESULTS: The effectiveness in terms of percentage reduction in LDL-C ranged from 19% for pravastatin 10 mg/day to 55% for atorvastatin 80 mg/day. Annual treatment costs ranged from Euro 189.7 for simvastatin 10 mg/day to Euro 759.3 for atorvastatin 80 mg/day. The cost-effectiveness ratios, in terms of cost per percentage point reduction in LDL-C, were: Euro 6 for simvastatin, Euro 10-12 for rosuvastatin, Euro 10 for lovastatin, Euro 13-16 for atorvastatin, Euro 13-14 for fluvastatin, and Euro 14-20 for pravastatin. Rosuvastatin + ezetimibe, simvastatin + ezetimibe, and atorvastatin + ezetimibe were the most cost-effective combination therapies for reducing LDL-C levels. Rosuvastatin was the most cost-effective statin for achieving the LDL-C therapeutic goal in patients at high risk for CHD, with a mean cost per patient of Euro 516. Simvastatin was the most cost-effective statin to achieve the LDL-C goal in patients with moderate or low CHD risk, with a cost per patient of Euro 217 and Euro 190, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin should be the first-choice agent in patients with high CHD risk, while simvastatin should be the first choice in patients with moderate or low risk. The addition of ezetimibe to rosuvastatin, simvastatin, or atorvastatin should be the preferred combination therapies when greater LDL-C reductions are required. The cost effectiveness of all statin therapies has increased in Spain after the introduction of generic statins and reference prices.

Projected cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with doubling the statin dose in the United Kingdom: findings from the INFORCE study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (Eze/Simva) compared with doubling the submaximal statin doses, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events in the INFORCE study. METHODS: Lifetime treatment costs and benefits were computed using a Markov model. Model inputs included each patient's cardiovascular risk factor profile and actual lipid values at baseline and 12 weeks (endpoint). Cardiovascular event and drug costs were discounted at 3.5%. Age-specific utilities were based on UK literature values and non-coronary heart disease mortality rates on the Office of National Statistics data. In the INFORCE study, 384 patients taking statins at stable doses for ≥6 weeks before hospital admission were stratified by statin dose/potency (low, medium, and high) and then randomized to doubling the statin dose or switching to Eze/Simva 10/40mg for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The Eze/Simva group (n=195) had a higher mean baseline total cholesterol than the double-statin group (n=189). Analyses were adjusted for baseline characteristics. In the INFORCE study, Eze/Simva reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by ∼30% (vs. 4% with doubling statin doses) and significantly enhanced LDL-C goal attainment. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, Eze/Simva conferred 0.218 incremental discounted quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a discounted incremental cost of £2524, for an ICER of £11,571/QALY (95% confidence interval=£8181-£18,600/QALY). The ICER was £13,552/QALY, £11,930/QALY, and £10,148/QALY in the low-, medium-, and high-potency strata, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to Eze/Simva 10/40 mg is projected to be a cost-effective treatment (vs. double-statin) in UK patients with ACS.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of a high-intensity statin compared to a low-intensity statin in the management of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate, using probabilistic decision-analytic modelling techniques, the cost effectiveness of treating familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) patients with high-intensity statins compared to treatment with low-intensity statins. For the purpose of this economic analysis, and based on their known differences, statins were categorised as high intensity if they produce greater LDL-cholesterol reductions than simvastatin 40 mg (e.g., simvastatin 80 mg and appropriate doses of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin or combination of statins + ezetimibe). METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of treating a hypothetical cohort of 1000 FH patients aged between 20 and 70 years. Baseline coronary heart disease risks reported in the NICE TA 94 on statins, and age-adjusted risk of cardiovascular disease reported in the FH population, were used to populate the model. A meta-analysis estimate of the reduction in cardiovascular events from using high-intensity compared with low-intensity statins was obtained from published trials. Results were interpreted using a cost-effectiveness threshold of pound20 000/QALY. RESULTS: Fewer cardiovascular events and deaths were predicted to occur in the group treated with higher-intensity statins, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated at pound11 103/QALY. The ICER remained below the pound20 000 threshold for 20-39-year-olds and 40-59-year-olds, but rose above this threshold in individuals aged over 60 years. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to variation in treatment effect on mortality and the cost of high-intensity statins. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling demonstrates that high-intensity statins are cost-effective for the treatment of younger FH patients. If, as is likely, the relative price of high-intensity statins fall in the future as they come off patent, then their cost effectiveness will improve further.

An assessment of the carcinogenic potential of ezetimibe using nonclinical data in a weight-of-evidence approach.

Ezetimibe blocks intestinal absorption of sterols via interaction with the Neimann-Pick C1-Like 1 (NPC1L1) transporter and is approved for use in the treatment of primary hyperlipidemia (heterozygous familial and non-familial), homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, and homozygous sitosterolemia. A recently completed randomized clinical trial [simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis (SEAS)] testing the effectiveness of Vytorin (a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe) in patients with aortic stenosis reported an unexpected safety finding: an increase in overall cancer incidence and cancer-associated mortality (all types) in the treated groups relative to the placebo control. A subsequent meta-analysis utilizing a much larger database from two ongoing clinical trials indicated that the observed findings in the SEAS trial were likely due to chance and not a true drug-induced effect. Nonetheless, it has been suggested by various commentators on the SEAS trial that ezetimibe may be carcinogenic. The extensive nonclinical database for ezetimibe was used to test the hypothesis that ezetimibe may be a direct or indirect carcinogen. Using two different in silico approaches, ezetimibe showed no structural alerts for genetic toxicity or carcinogenicity. Ezetimibe was not genotoxic in two reverse mutation assays, one in vitro clastogenicity assay, and two mouse micronucleus assays. No evidence of proliferative lesions was observed in three species in studies of 1-12 months in duration. Ezetimibe was not carcinogenic in standard 2-year bioassays in mice and rats. Additionally, in these 2-year bioassays, no drug-related non-neoplastic lesions were noted. The absence of drug-induced non-neoplastic or proliferative lesions in these studies indicates that ezetimibe treatment was not associated with findings characteristic of carcinogens (i.e., DNA reactivity or cell proliferation) Administration of pharmacologic doses of ezetimibe to mice did not alter hepatic expression patterns of genes associated with apoptosis, cell proliferation, or epithelial-mesenchymal transition. No evidence of drug-induced tumors was observed in mice in which the molecular target of ezetimibe (NPC 1L1) was knocked out over the life span of the animal. In conclusion, the nonclinical data do not support the proposed hypothesis based on the single observation from the SEAS trial and, rather, support the conclusion that ezetimibe does not represent a carcinogenic hazard to humans using this drug in a therapeutic setting.

Safety assessment of new antithrombotic agents: lessons from the EXTEND study on ximelagatran.

BACKGROUND: Ximelagatran, the first oral direct thrombin inhibitor, was shown to be an effective antithrombotic agent but was associated with potential liver toxicity after prolonged administration. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The aim of the EXTEND study was to assess safety and efficacy of extended administration (35 days) of ximelagatran or enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective hip replacement and hip fracture surgery. A follow-up period, including assessment of liver enzymes (in particular alanine aminotransferase; ALAT), until post-operative day 180 was planned, with visits at days 56 and 180. RESULTS: Randomization and administration of study drugs were stopped following a report of serious liver injury occurring 3 weeks after completion of ximelagatran treatment. At the time of study termination, 1158 patients had been randomized and 641 had completed the 35-day treatment; with 303 ximelagatran and 265 enoxaparin patients remaining in the study through to the day 56 follow-up visit. Overall, 58 patients showed an ALAT increase to >2x upper limit of normal: 31 treated with enoxaparin, 27 with ximelagatran. Three ximelagatran patients also showed symptoms potentially related to liver toxicity. Eleven ximelagatran patients showed an ALAT increase after study treatment ended. The clinical development of ximelagatran was terminated and the drug withdrawn from the market. Evaluation of the relative efficacy of the two treatments as specified in the protocol was impossible due to the premature termination of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged administration of ximelagatran was associated with an increased risk of liver toxicity. In a substantial proportion of patients, ALAT increase occurred after treatment withdrawal. The findings seen with ximelagatran should be considered when designing studies with new antithrombotic agents.

Ezetimibe 5 and 10 mg for lowering LDL-C: potential billion-dollar savings with improved tolerability.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of ezetimibe 5 mg (prescribed as a 10-mg tablet split in half) with a whole 10-mg tablet. STUDY DESIGN: From January 2003 through July 2005, all Bronx Veterans Administration ezetimibe prescriptions were for 10 mg. In August 2005, it was mandated that all new ezetimibe prescriptions be 5 mg, prescribed as a 10-mg tablet split in half. METHODS: The impact of the 2 ezetimibe dosing strategies on percent lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) goals was assessed in all patients prescribed ezetimibe 5 or 10 mg. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were prescribed ezetimibe; 86 received 5 mg and 186 received 10 mg. Of those 272 patients, 197 had evaluable baseline and posttreatment LDL-C (55 taking the 5-mg dose and 142 taking the 10-mg dose). The effects of ezetimibe 5 and 10 mg on all lipid parameters were similar. Ezetimibe 10 mg reduced LDL-C by 26.1%, whereas 5 mg reduced LDL-C by 25.8%. The percentages of patients achieving goal LDL-C were similar: 61.8% (5 mg) and 60.5% (10 mg). CONCLUSION: These data strongly suggest that ezetimibe 5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg are clinically equivalent with respect to LDL-C reduction and achievement of ATP III LDL-C goals. Widespread adoption of this low-dose strategy could result in a potential cost savings of more than a billion dollars annually, with a potential reduction in hepatotoxicity.

Enhanced hype.

The recently published Effect of Combination Ezetimibe and High-Dose Simvastatin vs. Simvastatin Alone on the Atherosclerotic Process in Patients With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (ENHANCE) trial seems to raise questions regarding the notion that lipid lowering is of benefit in the prevention and treatment of vascular disease. Before one can make this conclusion, a careful analysis of the trial, including the subjects included and the surrogate end point studied, is required. The results of this study should be taken in context with those of many other studies showing that lipid lowering by many approaches is beneficial. In conclusion, the public fury over this study, with physicians making unsupported statements to the press and on the Web, is unfortunate and should be discouraged in the future.

[Cost effectiveness in the Danish health care of ezetemibe co-administration compared to simvastatin]. / Omkostningseffektivitet i det danske sundhedsvaesen ved ezetimibe-koadministration med simvastatin.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ezetemibe coadministration compared to a shift to higher doses of simvastatin or to a more potent statin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The calculations are based on a Markov model in which a patient who does not attain the desired cholesterol outcome with simvastatin treatment is treated either with ezetemibe coadministration, or with increased simvastatin doses, or with a more potent statin. Calculations are conducted for a total of 72 different patient types followed over the remainder of their lives. RESULTS: Ezetemibe coadministration evaluated over the entire lifetime will be somewhat more expensive than simvastatin titration but must, however, be seen in relation to improved survival and increased quality of life. For the typical patient, treatment will be associated with costs of between DKK 50,000 and 100,000 per gained year of life, which cannot be deemed too expensive in relation to other interventions provided by the Health Authorities. For some patient types who receive treatment with a potent statin (atorvastatin), savings will also be possible here as well as an increase in life expectancy and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that ezetemibe coadministration is cost effective. The results are sustainable even with quite significant changes of the estimates used and taking into account uncertainties in the material and methods.

Ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe as a combination therapy or monotherapy for the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia in the UK. DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2006. Searches were supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles, sponsor and other submissions of evidence to the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence and conference proceedings. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis (where appropriate) of the clinical efficacy evidence was undertaken following recommended guidelines. A Markov model was developed to explore the costs and health outcomes associated with ezetimibe treatment. RESULTS: No published clinical outcome trials (> 12 weeks) were identified. In the absence of clinical end-point data from trials, 13 (of which five were multi-arm) phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (of varying methodological quality) of short-term duration (12-48 weeks) with surrogate end-point data were included. For patients not adequately controlled with a statin alone, a meta-analysis of six studies showed that a fixed-dose combination of ezetimibe and statin treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and total cholesterol (Total-c) compared with statin alone (p < 0.00001). Four studies (not eligible for meta-analysis) that titrated (either forced or stepwise) the statin doses to LDL-c targets generally showed that the co-administration of ezetimibe and statin was significantly more effective in reducing plasma LDL-c concentrations than statin monotherapy (p < 0.05 for all studies). For patients where a statin is not considered appropriate, a meta-analysis of seven studies demonstrated that ezetimibe monotherapy significantly reduced LDL-c levels compared with placebo (p < 0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences in LDL-c-lowering effects across different subgroups. Ezetimibe therapy (either in combination with a statin or monotherapy) appeared to be well tolerated compared to statin monotherapy or placebo, respectively. No ezetimibe studies reported data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There was a wide range in the economic results depending on the treatment strategies evaluated. When comparing ezetimibe monotherapy with no treatment in individuals with baseline LDL-c values of 3.0-4.0 mmol/l, the results range from 21,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results for individuals with baseline LDL-c values over 5.0 mmol/l are below 30,000 pounds per QALY. When comparing the costs and benefits of adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin treatment compared with maintaining statin treatment at the current dose, the majority of results are above values generally considered to be cost-effective (range 19,000 pounds to 48,000 pounds per QALY). Based on the evidence available, when comparing the costs and benefits associated with adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin treatment compared with a switch to a more potent statin, the results are governed by the difference in the cost of the treatment regimens compared and results range from 1500 pounds to 116,000 pounds per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term RCT clinical evidence demonstrated that ezetimibe was effective in reducing LDL-c when administered as monotherapy or in combination with a statin. However, when used as a monotherapy, ezetimibe is less effective than statins in lowering LDL-c. Given the limitations in the effectiveness data, there is great uncertainty in the economic results. These suggest that ezetimibe could be a cost-effective treatment for individuals with high baseline LDL-c values, for patients with diabetes and for individuals with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Long-term clinical outcome studies are needed to allow more precise cost-effectiveness estimates to be calculated.

[Cost-effectiveness of managing familial hypercholesterolemia using atorvastatin-based preventive therapy]. / Coste-efectividad del manejo de la hipercolesterolemia familiar con estrategias de tratamiento preventivo basadas en atorvastatina.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to evaluate the efficiency of different preventive strategies in familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in comparison with routine clinical practice (CP): atorvastatin monotherapy, 40 mg (A40) or 80 mg (A80, and atorvastatin combined with ezetimibe, 10 mg (A40+E10 or A80+E10). METHODS: A longitudinal population model with a time horizon for life-expectancy was developed within the context of the Spanish public healthcare system. Life tables for the Spanish population (2002) were modified using the standardized mortality rate for individuals with FH. Effectiveness was expressed in life-years gained (LYG), after taking into account reductions for risk (ie, Framingham risk score) and cardiovascular mortality. The costs (in 2005 terms) of the intervention (CI) and care (CC) were discounted at 6%, while effects were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: Routine CP, based on the Spanish FH registry: 1.97 LYG per patient vs. no treatment; CI euro5321, CC euro23,389. A40: 2.59 LYG; reduction in CC compared with CP 4.5%; total costs (TC) euro30 569. A80: 2.75 LYG; reduction in CC 6.4%; TC euro30 133. A40+E10: 3.38 LYG; reduction in CC 14.3%; TC euro36 104. A80+E10: 3.62 LYG; reduction in CC 17.6%; TC euro35 317. From most to least efficient strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness per LYG compared with CP was: a) A80: euro1821; b) A40: euro3012; c) A80+E10: euro4021, and d) A40+E10: euro5250. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive treatment of FH with atorvastatin was cost-effective. The greatest cost-effectiveness was obtained with atorvastatin monotherapy, 80 mg. The addition of ezetimibe could produce further benefits at an acceptable incremental cost.