Epidemiological, clinical and economic burden of alopecia areata in Spain: a real-world retrospective study. The PETALO study.

Alopecia areata (AA) is a chronic autoimmune disease that causes non-scarring hair loss. Data are lacking on the epidemiology and clinical and economic burden of AA in Spain. To estimate the prevalence and incidence of AA in Spain and describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs. This was an observational, retrospective, descriptive study based on the Health Improvement Network (THIN®) database (Cegedim Health Data, Spain). Patients with ICD9-Code 704.01 for AA, registered between 2014 and 2021, were identified. Prevalence (%) and incidence rates per 1,000 patient-years (IR) of AA were calculated and clinical characteristics, treatment characteristics and HCRU/costs were assessed. A total of 5,488 patients with AA were identified. The point prevalence of AA in 2021 was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.45) overall, 0.48 (0.47-0.49) in adults, and 0.23 (0.21-0.26) in children ≤12 years. The 2021 IR for AA in adults was 0.55 (0.51-0.60). Of 3,351 adults with AA, 53.4% were female, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 43.1 (14.7) years, and 41.6% experienced comorbidities. Among adults, 2.7% used systemic treatment (0.5% immunosuppressants, 2.5% oral corticosteroids, 0.3% both). Laboratory tests and health care professional visits were the principal drivers of cost, which was €821.2 (1065.6)/patient in the first year after diagnosis. The epidemiology of AA in Spain is comparable with that reported for other countries, being more prevalent among adults. There is a significant burden of comorbidities and cost for patients, with limited use of systemic treatments, suggesting an unmet treatment need in this population.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adalimumab Versus Cyclosporine for Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada Disease: A Randomized Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the 26-week cost-effectiveness of adalimumab-corticosteroids (ADA-CS) and cyclosporine-corticosteroids (CSA-CS) for Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada (VKH). METHODS: A preplanned cost-effectiveness analysis based on the per-protocol population of a randomized-controlled trial. VKH subjects were randomized to receive either cyclosporine (100-200 mg daily) combined with corticosteroids or adalimumab (40 mg twice monthly) combined with corticosteroids. The primary outcome of this cost-effectiveness study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) data were calculated by the medical records and health utility, respectively. Subgroup (early and late-phase VKH) analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The ICER at 26 weeks was $62,425/QALY for the total participants. Compared to the CSA-CS group, costs in the ADA-CS group were more expensive (mean difference [ΔA-C]: $2,497) with more gains in QALYs (mean difference [ΔA-C]: 0.04). The probability of ADA-CS being cost-effective was 0.17 and 0.41 at willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds of $12,000/QALY and $36,000/QALY, respectively. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analyses showed consistent findings with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of early or late-phase VKH, the CSA-CS strategy may be recommended as the preferred initial choice for the majority of VKH.

Remission and low disease activity are associated with lower healthcare costs: results from the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) inception cohort.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the independent impact of definitions of remission/low disease activity (LDA) on direct/indirect costs (DCs, ICs) in a multicentre inception cohort. METHODS: Patients from 31 centres in 10 countries were enrolled within 15 months of diagnosis and assessed annually. Five mutually exclusive disease activity states (DAS) were defined as (1) remission off-treatment: clinical (c) SLEDAI-2K=0, without prednisone/immunosuppressants; (2) remission on-treatment: cSLEDAI-2K=0, prednisone ≤5 mg/day and/or maintenance immunosuppressants; (3) LDA-Toronto Cohort (TC): cSLEDAI-2K≤2, without prednisone/immunosuppressants; (4) modified lupus LDA state (mLLDAS): SLEDAI-2K≤4, no activity in major organs/systems, no new activity, prednisone ≤7.5 mg/day and/or maintenance immunosuppressants and (5) active: all remaining assessments.At each assessment, patients were stratified into the most stringent DAS fulfilled and the proportion of time in a DAS since cohort entry was determined. Annual DCs/ICs (2021 Canadian dollars) were based on healthcare use and lost workforce/non-workforce productivity over the preceding year.The association between the proportion of time in a DAS and annual DC/IC was examined through multivariable random-effects linear regressions. RESULTS: 1692 patients were followed a mean of 9.7 years; 49.0% of assessments were active. Remission/LDA (per 25% increase in time in a remission/LDA state vs active) were associated with lower annual DC/IC: remission off-treatment (DC -$C1372; IC -$C2507), remission on-treatment (DC -$C973; IC -$C2604,) LDA-TC (DC -$C1158) and mLLDAS (DC -$C1040). There were no cost differences between remission/LDA states. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that systemic lupus erythematosus patients who achieve remission, both off and on-therapy, and reductions in disease activity incur lower costs than those experiencing persistent disease activity.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing in solid organ transplantation using real-world data.

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant recipients relative to standard of care (SOC) tacrolimus dosing, from a US healthcare payer perspective. We developed decision-tree models to compare economic and clinical outcomes between CYP3A5 genotype-guided and SOC tacrolimus therapy in the first six months post-transplant. We derived inputs for CYP3A5 phenotype frequencies and physician use of genotype test results to inform clinical care from literature; tacrolimus exposure [high vs low tacrolimus time in therapeutic range using the Rosendaal algorithm (TAC TTR-Rosendaal)] and outcomes (incidences of acute tacrolimus nephrotoxicity, acute cellular rejection, and death) from real-world data; and costs from the Medicare Fee Schedule and literature. We calculated cost per avoided event and performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the results to changes in inputs. Incremental costs per avoided event for CYP3A5 genotype-guided vs SOC tacrolimus dosing were $176,667 for kidney recipients, $364,000 for liver recipients, $12,982 for heart recipients, and $93,333 for lung recipients. The likelihood of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing leading to cost-savings was 19.8% in kidney, 32.3% in liver, 51.8% in heart, and 54.1% in lung transplant recipients. Physician use of genotype results to guide clinical care and the proportion of patients with a high TAC TTR-Rosendaal were key parameters driving the cost-effectiveness of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus therapy. Relative to SOC, CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing resulted in a slightly greater benefit at a higher cost. Further economic evaluations examining intermediary outcomes (e.g., dose modifications) are needed, particularly in populations with higher frequencies of CYP3A5 expressers.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin for the treatment of lupus nephritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lupus nephritis (LN) is a severe manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus; up to 30% of patients with LN will develop end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). One of the main treatment goals for LN is preservation of kidney function, with early decreases in proteinuria associated with improved long-term outcomes. Voclosporin, a second-generation calcineurin inhibitor, was approved in the United States in 2021 for the treatment of active LN combined with background immunosuppression. The AURORA 1 study found that the use of voclosporin with low doses of mycophenolate mofetil and glucocorticoids yielded significant reductions in proteinuria. The AURORA 2 study showed long-term efficacy and safety of voclosporin over a 3-year period with kidney function preservation. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is a nonprofit organization that evaluates medical evidence to help improve patient outcomes and control costs. In 2021, ICER published an economic model to estimate the impact and cost-effectiveness of LN therapies. From a US health care perspective, voclosporin was cost-effective at $149,260 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $131,528 per equal value of life-years gained (evLYG). At the time of the LN cost-effectiveness model (CEM) development, voclosporin was not yet approved in the United States and the cost of treating patients with LN with ESKD was not captured in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin given the emergence of new data. METHODS: The LN CEM uses a short-term trial-based Markov model and long-term extrapolation using partitioned survival modeling data assuming adults with LN start with active disease, transitioning to complete or partial renal response, kidney failure, or death. In the current analysis, clinical data for voclosporin, duration of voclosporin treatment for nonresponders, and drug costs reflecting the 2023 price of voclosporin were updated. Additionally, health care payer costs of disease management were incorporated based on real-world claims data on the costs of treating patients with LN. RESULTS: Using the LN CEM with inputs reflecting the latest and most relevant evidence, the incremental cost of voclosporin per QALY was $88,076 and per evLYG was $77,643. For a subpopulation of Black, Hispanic, and Latino patients, the incremental cost of voclosporin per QALY was $77,435 and per evLYG was $67,828. CONCLUSIONS: Following the inclusion of updated data in the cost-effectiveness analysis, voclosporin remains a cost-effective therapy for the treatment of active LN including in a Black, Hispanic, and Latino subpopulation, substantially below the ICER willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY.

Randomised clinical trial: First-line infliximab biosimilar is cost-effective compared to conventional treatment in paediatric Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab in paediatric patients with Crohn's disease are limited. Since biologics are increasingly prescribed and accompanied by high costs, this knowledge gap needs to be addressed. AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab compared to conventional treatment in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. METHODS: We included patients from the Top-down Infliximab Study in Kids with Crohn's disease randomised controlled trial. Children with newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease were treated with azathioprine maintenance and either five induction infliximab (biosimilar) infusions or conventional induction treatment (exclusive enteral nutrition or corticosteroids). Direct healthcare consumption and costs were obtained per patient until week 104. This included data on outpatient hospital visits, hospital admissions, drug costs, endoscopies and surgeries. The primary health outcome was the odds ratio of being in clinical remission (weighted paediatric Crohn's disease activity index<12.5) during 104 weeks. RESULTS: We included 89 patients (44 in the first-line infliximab group and 45 in the conventional treatment group). Mean direct healthcare costs per patient were €36,784 for first-line infliximab treatment and €36,874 for conventional treatment over 2 years (p = 0.981). The odds ratio of first-line infliximab versus conventional treatment to be in clinical remission over 104 weeks was 1.56 (95%CI 1.03-2.35, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: First-line infliximab treatment resulted in higher odds of being in clinical remission without being more expensive, making it the dominant strategy over conventional treatment in the first 2 years after diagnosis in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02517684.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacological Treatment for Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients in Colombia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cost-effective pharmacological treatment in adult kidney transplant recipients from the perspective of the Colombian health system. METHODS: A decision tree model for the induction phase and a Markov model for the maintenance phase were built. A review of the clinical literature was conducted to extract probabilities, and the life-years were used as the outcome. Costs were calculated using the administrative databases. The evaluating treatment schemes are organized by groups of evidence with direct comparisons. RESULTS: In the induction phase, anti-thymocyte immunoglobulin+ methylprednisolone is dominant, more effective, and less expensive, compared with basiliximab+methylprednisolone. In the maintenance phase, azathioprine (AZA) is dominant in contrast to mycophenolate mofetil (MFM) both with cyclosporine (CIC)+ corticosteroids (CE); CIC is dominant relative to sirolimus (SIR) and tacrolimus (TAC) (both with MFM+CE or AZA+CE), and TAC is dominant compared with SIR (in addition with MFM+CE or mycophenolate sodium [MFS]+CE); MFM is dominant in relation to MFS and everolimus, and SIR is more effective MFM but it does not exceed the threshold (in sum with TAC+CE); MFS and MFM are dominant relative to everolimus, and SIR is more effective than MFM, but it does not exceed the threshold (in addiction with CIC+CE); MFM is dominant in relation to TAC (in sum with SIR+CE), and CIC+AZA+CE is dominant in relation to TAC+MFM+CE. CONCLUSIONS: The base-case results for all evidence groups are consistent with the different sensitivity analyses.

Key considerations for modelling the long-term costs and benefits of treatments for ANCA-associated vasculitis.

OBJECTIVES: Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a group of severe and chronic autoimmune diseases. Patients undergo two treatment phases: inducing remission and maintaining remission to prevent organ damage. Immunosuppressants, including glucocorticoids (GCs) are used as first-line treatment, but long-term GC use is associated with toxic effects. Novel treatments reduce or replace the need for long-term GC, and therefore can reduce GC-related toxicity. The evolving treatment landscape has presented new challenges for health technology assessment (HTA) of new treatments in AAV and long-term modelling of costs and outcomes in this disease. METHODS: Using the appraisal of avacopan in England (NICE) as a case study, this paper aims to identify the key challenges involved in the economic evaluation of new treatments for AAV, with a particular focus on the long-term modelling of the treatment costs and benefits for the purpose of HTA. The outcome of this study is a set of recommendations for modelling the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for AAV from the HTA perspective. RESULTS: The discussion focuses on the appropriate model structure, approach to modelling end-stage renal disease (ESRD) as a key determinant of costeffectiveness, capturing the impact of GC-related adverse events, and estimation of short and long-term costs of AAV. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluation of new treatments for AAV needs to capture all relevant downstream effects. ESRD is a key driver of cost-effectiveness but is associated with major uncertainty. Future observational studies need to offer sufficient detail to allow for differentiation in event rates across treatment options.

Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus). Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib). Data sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review. Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources. Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations. Future work and limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common skin conditions in children but can also develop in adulthood. People with atopic dermatitis have dry, red (inflamed) skin that is also extremely itchy (pruritus). There is no cure for atopic dermatitis. Therapy starts with topical treatments that are applied to the skin, such as emollients. Severe forms of atopic dermatitis are often treated with systemic treatments, which are drugs that are provided as tablets or an injection. Ciclosporin A is often the first systemic therapy given. If atopic dermatitis does not get better with ciclosporin A, options available in the National Health Service are dupilumab and baricitinib. New therapies that have been evaluated in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis but have not been assessed for use in the National Health Service are abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib. The aim of this project is to review the medical benefits, risks and value for money for the National Health Service of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a multiple technology appraisal. Our review found that: For children aged between 12 and 18 years, abrocitinib and a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg) are good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who need a first systemic treatment, upadacitinib is unlikely to be good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could be good value for money for the National Health Service if they are used on their own. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, but need to take it with steroid cream, abrocitinib 100 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could all be good value for money for the National Health Service.

Eficacia y seguridad de rituximab más corticoides sistémicos en pacientes adultos con pénfigo vulgar moderado a severo refractario o no tributario a tratamiento convencional con agentes inmunosupresores más corticoides sistémicos / Efficacy and safety of rituximab plus systemic corticosteroids in adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris refractory or not amenable to conventional treatment with immunosuppressive agents plus systemic corticosteroids

ANTECEDENTES: En el marco de la metodología ad hoc para evaluar solicitudes de tecnologías sanitarias, aprobada mediante Resolución N°111-IETSI-ESSALUD-2021 del Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación (IETSI), se ha elaborado el presente dictamen, el cual expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de rituximab en pacientes adultos con pénfigo vulgar refractario a tratamiento convencional, en adyuvancia a corticoides sistémicos. Así, los siguientes médicos especialistas de la institución : Cindy Rodríguez Arbi, Juan Cavero Guardamino, José Catacora Cama, y Edward Alca Villarroel (médicos dermatólogos del Servicio de Dermatología del Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen de la Red Prestacional Almenara); María Pajuelo Levano, Adeliza Manrique Vera, y Celia Moisés Alfaro (médicos dermatólogos del Servicio de Dermatología del Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins de la Red Prestacional Rebagliati) enviaron al IETSI las solicitudes de aprobación de uso del producto farmacéutico rituximab no incluido en Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud siguiendo la Directiva N°003-IETSI-ESSALUD-2016. ASPECTOS GENERALES: El pénfigo vulgar (PV) es una enfermedad autoinmune poco común, caracterizada por la presencia de ampollas intraepidérmicas extensas en las membranas mucosas y la piel. A nivel mundial, se han informado tasas de incidencia anual de entre 0.1 y 0.5 por 100,000 personas (M. Hertl and Sitaru 2022). El PV se caracteriza por la presencia de autoanticuerpos IgG dirigidos contra cadherinas dependientes de calcio: la desmogleína 3 y la desmogleína 1. La acantólisis (pérdida de la adhesión intercelular con formación consiguiente de ampollas epidérmicas) es el resultado de la inhibición de la función de las desmogleínas por la unión a los autoanticuerpos IgG que causa un descenso de la adhesión intercelular (M. Hertl and Sitaru 2022). El diagnóstico del PV se realiza por biopsia cutánea con pruebas de inmunofluorescencia y enzimoinmunoensayo inmunoadsorbente (ELISA) (M. Hertl and Sitaru 2022). METODOLOGÍA: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática utilizando las bases de datos PubMed, Cochrane Library y LILACS. Además, se realizó una búsqueda dentro de bases de datos pertenecientes a grupos que realizan evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC), incluyendo el Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), el National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), el Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), el Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud de Colombia (IETS), la Comissáo Nacional de Incorpornáo de Tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde (CONITEC), entre otros. Asimismo, se revisó la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA) y páginas web de sociedades especializadas en dermatología, tales como: la American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), la British Association of Dermatologists (BAD), la European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) y la International Pemphigus and Pemphigoid Foundation (IPPF). Adicionalmente, se hizo una búsqueda en las páginas web del registro de ensayos clínicos administrado por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina de los Estados Unidos (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) y de la International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) (https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/), para identificar ensayos clínicos en curso o cuyos resultados no hayan sido publicados. RESULTADOS: La búsqueda de literatura permitió identificar cuatro publicaciones: una GPC realizada por la BAD (Harman et al. 2017); una ETS elaborada por el Servicio Nacional de Salud (NHS, por sus siglas en inglés) de Inglaterra (NHS England 2016); y dos publicaciones del ECA Ritux 3 (Joly et al. 2017; Chen et al. 2020). CONCLUSIÓN: Por todo lo expuesto, el IETSI aprueba el uso de rituximab más corticoides sistémicos en pacientes adultos con pénfigo vulgar moderado a severo refractario o no tributario a tratamiento convencional con agentes inmunosupresores (azatioprina y micofenolato de mofetilo) más corticoides sistémicos, como producto farmacéutico no incluido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud, sus condiciones de uso se encuentran establecidas en el Anexo N° 1. La vigencia del presente dictamen preliminar es de un año a partir de la fecha de publicación. Así, la continuación de dicha aprobación estará sujeta a la evaluación de los resultados obtenidos y de mayor evidencia que pueda surgir en el tempo.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Belimumab and Voclosporin for Patients with Lupus Nephritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite existing therapies, people with lupus nephritis progress to kidney failure and have reduced life expectancy. Belimumab and voclosporin are two new disease-modifying therapies recently approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, including the following health states: "complete response," "partial response," and "active disease" defined by eGFR and proteinuria changes, kidney failure, and death. Short-term data and mean cohort characteristics were sourced from pivotal clinical trials of belimumab (the Belimumab International Study in Lupus Nephritis) and voclosporin (the Aurinia Urinary Protection Reduction Active-Lupus with Voclosporin trial and Aurinia Renal Response in Active Lupus With Voclosporin). Risk of mortality and kidney failure were on the basis of survival modeling using published Kaplan-Meier data. Each drug was compared with the standard of care as represented by the comparator arm in its respective pivotal trial(s) using US health care sector perspective, with a societal perspective also explored. RESULTS: In the health care perspective probabilistic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab compared with its control arm was estimated to be approximately $95,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The corresponding incremental ratio for voclosporin compared with its control arm was approximately $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Compared with their respective standard care arms, the probabilities of belimumab and voclosporin being cost effective at a threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year were 69% and 49%, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival in response states, costs and utilities in active disease, and the utilities in response states. In the analysis from a societal perspective, the incremental ratio for belimumab was estimated to be approximately $66,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental ratio for voclosporin was estimated to be approximately $133,000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with their respective standard care arms, belimumab but not voclosporin met willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Despite potential clinical superiority in the informing trials, there remains high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin.

Fixed-dose administration and pharmacokinetically guided adjustment of busulfan dose for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-dose busulfan (Bu) administration and pharmacokinetically (PK) guided adjustment of Bu dose for patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The efficacy and safety of both dosing strategies were compared using a systematic review and meta-analysis. A Markov model was used in estimating relevant cost and health outcomes from the perspective of the health system. The primary outcomes of interest were lifetime cost, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollar per QALY gained. Results showed that progression-free survival and overall survival in the PK-guided group were higher than that in the fixed-dose group, and the PK-guided group was associated with low non-relapse mortality and relapse rate. In contrast to safety, the incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was the same in the two groups (P > 0.05). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the QALY of the PK-guided group (12.8135 QALYs and $582,475.07) increased by 2.0609 relative to that in the fixed-dose group (10.7526 QALYs and $562,833.20), and the ICER was $9530.72/QALY. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of the results. In conclusion, the PK-guided approach has higher efficacy and is safer.

Cost minimization analysis of mainstay treatments in cutaneous lupus erythematous.

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) can be treated with multiple oral immunosuppressants but cost analyses of these treatments are lacking. We aimed to assess the relative cost difference between various oral medications for CLE using a cost-minimization analysis. Annual direct costs for 10 oral medications used in CLE were calculated including cost of medications and patient monitoring, which include office visits, laboratory and radiological studies, and procedures. Medication costs were taken from the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost calculated by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services or the Average Wholesale Price. Monitoring guidelines were obtained from expert consensus and FDA-approved recommendations. Methotrexate had the lowest total direct cost ($899.31), followed by hydroxychloroquine ($1007.38), mycophenolate mofetil ($1162.12), azathioprine ($1193.71), chloroquine ($2525.01), dapsone ($2750.68), cyclosporine ($2976.32), thalidomide ($75,831.44), and lenalidomide ($316,104.03). For medications used for CLE patients, the medication cost contributes the most to differences between direct costs. Limitations include insufficient patient outcome data to ascertain medication efficacy, exclusion of cost of medication-related adverse events and hospitalizations, and medication cost data not reflecting all payers. Clinicians can use this data to help discern which medication to prescribe CLE patients with financial constraints and reduce healthcare spending.

The effectiveness and value of belimumab and voclosporin for lupus nephritis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Pearson is employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Tice, Mandrik, Thokala, and Fotheringham received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Emerging treatments for lupus nephritis: health equity considerations in clinical research and coverage.

DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for the writing of this commentary. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Cost-effectiveness of once-daily vs twice-daily tacrolimus among Hispanic and Black kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus is a first-line immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection and graft failure in kidney transplant recipients. Once-daily extended-release tacrolimus tablets (LCPT) have been shown to be efficacious, particularly for Hispanic and Black patient subpopulations who are rapid metabolizers, but is more costly than twice-daily immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LCPT during the first year of treatment vs IR-Tac in kidney transplant recipients who are Hispanic or Black. METHODS: A decision analytic model from a US payer perspective was developed using (1) subgroup outcomes data pooled from two phase 3 clinical trials that compared LCPT and IR-Tac, and (2) direct costs from real-world data sources (ie, costs of LCPT and IR-Tac treatments, biopsy-proven acute rejection, treatment-related serious adverse events [SAEs], graft failure, and consequent dialysis). The primary outcome was cost per successfully treated patient, defined as having a functioning graft after 1 year and without treatment-related SAEs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses established distributions for cost and outcomes estimates, and a series of one-way sensitivity analyses identified parameters that had the most effect on results. RESULTS: Total overall cost for the Hispanic group was $14,765 for LCPT and $12,416 for IR-Tac, and total cost in the Black group was $16,626 for LCPT and $9,871 for IR-Tac. Total overall effectiveness of LCPT and IR-Tac was 88.32% and 84.75% in the Hispanic group and 93.24% and 85.78% in the Black group, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for using LCPT over IR-Tac during the first year of treatment in the Hispanic group was $65,643 per additional successfully treated patient. The ICER for the Black group was $90,458. The single parameter having the most impact on results in both groups was the probability of a treatment-related SAE in IR-Tac, which accounted for 49% of variation in results in the Hispanic group and 46% in the Black group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results for both groups show that LCPT is incrementally more costly and more effective compared with IR-Tac, indicating a trade-off scenario. LCPT is a cost-effective strategy if a decision makers' willingness to pay for 1 additional successfully treated patient exceeds the ICER and must be weighed against the costs of graft loss, continuing dialysis, and potential retransplant. This study provides a foundation for further research to update and expand inputs as more data become available to improve real-world relevance and decision making. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which provided clinical trial file data and nonbinding feedback on the model structure, data interpretation, clinical expertise, manuscript review, and areas of publication interest (ie, managed care). Hurwitz, Grizzle, Villa Zapata, and Malone received grant funding from Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through University of Arizona to conduct research and analysis for this study. Tyler is employed by Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Some of the data reported and used in this research were available from the US Renal Data System, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utility Project. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US government.

Lessons Learned Treating Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Resource-Constrained Settings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Based on personal experiences, recommendations for physicians treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Implement strategies to keep the patient in the best possible condition for the longest time, in addition to focusing on ways to avoid financial toxicity; (2) if lenalidomide is unavailable, start treatment with thalidomide and dexamethasone, include, if possible, bortezomib; (3) conduct an outpatient-based autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in all eligible patients; (4) use thalidomide as post-ASCT maintenance treatment if lenalidomide is unavailable for the standard risk patients; (5) monitor monoclonal proteins with serum protein electrophoresis and free light chain measurements; (6) employ novel drugs in cases of relapsed or refractory disease; and (7) do not forget supportive therapy. The therapeutic recommendations to treat patients with MM are somewhat different for physicians working in LMICs, compared with those treating patients in high-income countries. These are relevant since more than 50% of the inhabitants of the world live in LMICs, thus indicating that the vast majority of patients with MM are being treated in resource-constrained settings. As time goes by, physicians may acquire the ability to analyze and express their feelings and experiences about topics in the practice of medicine in which they could have learned lessons (1). Since 1980, we have been treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM); to date, we have been personally involved in the study and treatment of more than 300 patients with this disease (2). Having gained experience dealing with MM patients in underprivileged circumstances, such as those prevailing in our country: México, having explored different ideas, treatments, and methods, and being aware of the financial implications which may impact our selection of therapeutic strategies and recommendations, we felt that it was appropriate to share in this article some of these ideas with practitioners around the world who are involved in the treatment of patients with MM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Economic impact of the new oral treatments for multiple sclerosis. / Impacto económico de las nuevas terapias orales en esclerosis múltiple.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease affecting the central nervous system and is characterised by inflammation, demyelination, gliosis, and axonal damage. The introduction of dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide has led to an increase in the number of alternative first-line therapies for MS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the incorporation of new oral therapies at the reference unit (CSUR) at Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study including patients diagnosed with MS, who underwent treatment with disease-modifying drugs in 2015 and were followed up for a minimum mean time of one year. Data were collected from patients' electronic clinical histories and the pharmacy service's programme for dispensing drugs to outpatients. RESULTS: Evaluating the cost of changing 125 patients' treatment from other drugs to dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide, and comparing this with the cost that would have resulted from maintaining their previous treatment, demonstrated a total saving of €169,107.31 over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to contributing new therapeutic alternatives, dimethyl fumarate and teriflunomide produced an economic saving in MS treatment at our hospital.

Cost effectiveness of caplacizumab in acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening disease characterized by thrombotic microangiopathy leading to end-organ damage. The standard of care (SOC) treatment is therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) alongside immunomodulation with steroids, with increasing use of rituximab ± other immunomodulatory agents. The addition of caplacizumab, a nanobody targeting von Willebrand factor, was shown to accelerate platelet count recovery and reduce TPE treatments and hospital length of stay in TTP patients treated in 2 major randomized clinical trials. The addition of caplacizumab to SOC also led to increased bleeding from transient reductions in von Willebrand factor and increased relapse rates. Using data from the 2 clinical trials of caplacizumab, we performed the first-ever cost-effectiveness analysis in TTP. Over a 5-year period, the projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in our Markov model was $1 482 260, significantly above the accepted 2019 US willingness-to-pay threshold of $195 300. One-way sensitivity analyses showed the utility of the well state and the cost of caplacizumab to have the largest effects on ICER, with a reduction in caplacizumab cost demonstrating the single greatest impact on lowering the ICER. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SOC was favored over caplacizumab in 100% of 10 000 iterations. Our data indicate that the addition of caplacizumab to SOC in treatment of acquired TTP is not cost effective because of the high cost of the medication and its failure to improve relapse rates. The potential impact of caplacizumab on health system cost using longer term follow-up data merits further study.

COVID-19 in hospitalised patients in Spain: a cohort study in Madrid.

Few large series describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and costs of COVID-19 in Western countries. This cohort reports the first 1255 adult cases receiving anti-COVID-19 treatment at a Spanish hospital (1-24 March 2020). Treatment costs were calculated. A logistic regression model was used to explore risk factors on admission associated with ARDS. A bivariate Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) model was employed to determine the HR between individual factors and death. We included 1255 patients (median age 65 years; 57.8% male), of which 92.3% required hospitalisation. The prevalence of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus (DM) was 45.1%, 31.4% and 19.9%, respectively. Lymphocytopenia (54.8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase (33.0%) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (58.5%) were frequent. Overall, 36.7% of patients developed ARDS, 10.0% were admitted to an ICU and 21.3% died. The most frequent antiviral combinations were lopinavir/ritonavir plus hydroxychloroquine (44.2%), followed by triple therapy with interferon beta-1b (32.7%). Corticosteroids and tocilizumab were used in 25.3% and 12.9% of patients, respectively. Total cost of anti-COVID-19 agents was €511 825 (€408/patient). By multivariate analysis, risk factors associated with ARDS included older age, obesity, DM, severe hypoxaemia, lymphocytopenia, increased creatine kinase and increased C-reactive protein. In multivariate Cox model, older age (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.09), cardiovascular disease (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.79), DM (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.09-1.92), severe hypoxaemia (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.49-2.72), lymphocytopenia (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20-2.20) and increased C-reactive protein (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06) were risk factors for mortality.