Development of a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of roxadustat in treating anemia associated with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD) largely consists of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) with iron supplementation. Although ESAs are well-established and efficacious, their use has been associated with considerable economic and humanistic burdens. Roxadustat, an oral medication, is a hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor that targets multiple causes of CKD and has a similar efficacy and safety profile to ESAs. The cost-effectiveness of this treatment, however, has yet to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of roxadustat compared with ESAs for treating anemia of non-dialysis-dependent (NDD) CKD. METHODS: A cohort-based model was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with anemia of NDD CKD, incorporating eight health states, representing the hemoglobin level of each patient. The model was informed by individual patient-level data from the roxadustat global phase 3 clinical trial program. Total and incremental costs as well as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with roxadustat versus ESAs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Analyses exploring alternative scenarios were also conducted. RESULTS: On a per-person basis, over 1,000 simulations, roxadustat was found to be on average less costly (-£32) and more effective (+0.01 QALYs) than ESAs, with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold from the UK perspective was 67%. CONCLUSION: The model developed may be a useful instrument that, alongside expert clinical opinion, can inform clinical and policy decision-making regarding treatment of anemia of NDD CKD. The model highlights the cost-effectiveness of roxadustat, as well as its potential to have a meaningful impact in reducing the burden of anemia of NDD CKD.

Frailty Status Predicts New Long-term Care Insurance Certification in Hepatitis C Patients Receiving Antiviral Therapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection deliver higher cure rates and lower frequencies of adverse events than existing therapies, though DAA treatment costs $45,000-64,000 in Japan. The prognosis of patients who require new long-term care insurance (LTCI) certification is inferior to that of patients who do not. Here, we clarify the factors associated with new LTCI certification in elderly patients with HCV infection who undergo DAA therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively surveyed 53 patients aged ≥70 years who were treated with DAAs, and evaluated the factors associated with new LTCI certification. RESULTS: Of 53 patients, 10 required new LTCI certification. Age ≥85 years and a modified Japanese Cardiovascular Health Study index ≥2 were independently associated with new LTCI certification. CONCLUSION: In elderly HCV patients, poor frailty status strongly predicted new LTCI certification after DAA therapy.

The efficacy and economic evaluation of roxadustat treatment for anemia in patients with kidney disease not receiving dialysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerance, and cost-effectiveness of roxadustat treatment for anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease not receiving dialysis (CKD ND). METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerance of roxadustat for the correction of anemia associated with CKD ND, and a Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of roxadustat compared with a placebo. RESULTS: The meta-analysis results showed that compared with a placebo, roxadustat treatment was associated with a remarkably higher rate of clinical response and the differences in the rate of adverse events between these two regimens were not significant. Moreover, roxadustat treatment (70 mg, three times per week) provided an additional 0.49 QALYs at a cost of $12,526 in the time horizon of 5 years, resulting in an ICER of $25,563 per QALY, with approximately 60% probability to be cost-effective at a $29,295 per QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold from the perspective of Chinese medical system. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of anemia in Chinese patients with CKD ND, roxadustat is much more effective than a placebo; moreover, it is cost-effective at conventional WTP thresholds.

Daclatasvir combined with asunaprevir is a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment for hepatitis C infection in China.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimen daclatasvir + asunaprevir (DUAL), versus interferon-based regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection. Methods: Inputs for a lifetime Markov model were sourced from clinical trials and published literature. Outputs include disease management costs, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years and cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses assessed the drivers of cost-effectiveness and sustained virologic response thresholds at which DUAL is cost-saving. Results: DUAL was associated with discounted incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.29-3.85 and incremental life-years of 0.85-2.59 per patient, with discounted lifetime cost savings of USD$1415-8525. Associated sustained virologic response rates could fall to 45.1-84.8%, while remaining dominant. Conclusion: Treatment with DUAL provides significant clinical benefit, while accruing lower lifetime costs.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). SETTING: Oncology hospital department in Italy. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered. RESULTS: NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC). CONCLUSIONS: NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.

The Servier oncology pipeline in 2017.

Cancer is a complex, multifactorial disease that for years has been the focus of intensive research efforts to explore both the molecular and biological mechanisms involved and the development of novel agents to target these pathways. Servier is an independent French pharmaceutical company with a focus on oncology. Currently, Servier's commercial portfolio includes agents used to treat non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and metastatic colorectal cancer; Servier's oncology pipeline involves agents for the treatment of both solid and hematological tumors. The main areas of future research focus on the development of therapeutics targeting apoptosis or the active immune components involved in tumour development/maintenance. Servier intends to continue its focus on cutting-edge oncology innovation by collaborating with both industry and academia, and maintaining its strong patient-centered approach.

Daclatasvir Plus Asunaprevir Dual Therapy for Chronic HCV Genotype 1b Infection: Results of Turkish Early Access Program

Abstract: Background. Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is approved for the treatment of HCV genotype 1b infection in several countries. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy in Turkish patients. Material and methods. Sixty-one patients with HCV genotype 1b were enrolled in the Turkish early access program. Most of the patients were in difficult-to-treat category. Patients were visited at each 4 week throughout the follow-up period. Laboratory findings and adverse events were recorded at each visit. Results. Fifty-seven of 61 enrolled patients completed 24 weeks of treatment. Two patients died as a result of underlying diseases at 12-14th weeks of treatment. Two patients stopped the treatment early as a consequence of virological breakthrough, and 2 patients had viral relapse at the post-treatment follow-up. Overall SVR12 rates were 90% (55/61) and 93.2% (55/59) according to intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analysis respectively. In ITT analysis, SVR12 was achieved by 93% (13/14) in relapsers, 80% (12/15) in interferon-ineligible patients and 91% (20/22) in previous nonresponder patients. SVR12 rates were 86.5% and 91.4% in patients with cirrhosis according to ITT and PP analysis respectively. SVR12 was 95.8% in non-cirrhosis group in both analysis. Patients with previous protease inhibitor experience had an SVR12 of 87.5%. Common adverse events developed in 28.8% of patients. There were no treatment related severe adverse event or grade-4 laboratory abnormality. Conclusions. Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is found to be effective and safe in difficult-to-treat Turkish patients with HCV genotype 1b infection.

Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir dual therapy for chronic HCV genotype 1b infection: results of Turkish early access program.

 Background. Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is approved for the treatment of HCV genotype 1b infection in several countries. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy in Turkish patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-one patients with HCV genotype 1b were enrolled in the Turkish early access program. Most of the patients were in difficult-to-treat category. Patients were visited at each 4 week throughout the follow-up period. Laboratory findings and adverse events were recorded at each visit. RESULTS: Fifty-seven of 61 enrolled patients completed 24 weeks of treatment. Two patients died as a result of underlying diseases at 12-14th weeks of treatment. Two patients stopped the treatment early as a consequence of virological breakthrough, and 2 patients had viral relapse at the post-treatment follow-up. Overall SVR12 rates were 90% (55/61) and 93.2% (55/59) according to intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analysis respectively. In ITT analysis, SVR12 was achieved by 93% (13/14) in relapsers, 80% (12/15) in interferon-ineligible patients and 91% (20/22) in previous nonresponder patients. SVR12 rates were 86.5% and 91.4% in patients with cirrhosis according to ITT and PP analysis respectively. SVR12 was 95.8% in non-cirrhosis group in both analysis. Patients with previous protease inhibitor experience had an SVR12 of 87.5%. Common adverse events developed in 28.8% of patients. There were no treatment related severe adverse event or grade-4 laboratory abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is found to be effective and safe in difficult-to-treat Turkish patients with HCV genotype 1b infection.

The Cost-effectiveness of Pixantrone for Third/Fourth-line Treatment of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (aNHL) is associated with poor long-term survival after relapse, and treatment is limited by a lack of consensus regarding standard of care. Pixantrone was studied in a randomized trial in patients with relapsed or refractory aNHL who had failed ≥ 2 lines of therapy, demonstrating a significant improvement in complete or unconfirmed complete response and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with investigators' choice of single-agent therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the health economic implications of pixantrone versus current clinical practice (CCP) in the United Kingdom for patients with multiply relapsed or refractory aNHL receiving their third or fourth line of treatment. METHODS: A semi-Markov partition model based on overall survival and PFS was developed to evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic impact of treatment of multiply relapsed or refractory aNHL with pixantrone versus CCP. The empirical overall survival and PFS data from the PIX301 trial were extrapolated to a lifetime horizon. Resource use was elicited from clinical experts, and unit costs and utilities were obtained from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service and personal social services. Outcomes evaluated were total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around the results. FINDINGS: Pixantrone was estimated to increase life expectancy by a mean of 10.8 months per patient compared with CCP and a mean gain of 0.56 discounted QALYs. The increased health gains were associated with an increase in discounted costs of approximately £18,494 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pixantrone versus CCP was £33,272 per QALY gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses suggest that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to uncertainty in the PFS and overall survival estimates and the utility values associated with each health state. IMPLICATIONS: Pixantrone may be considered both clinically effective and cost-effective for patients with multiply relapsed or refractory aNHL who currently have a high level of unmet need.

Cost Effectiveness of Daclatasvir/Asunaprevir Versus Peginterferon/Ribavirin and Protease Inhibitors for the Treatment of Hepatitis c Genotype 1b Naïve Patients in Chile.

INTRODUCTION: Daclatasvir and Asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) have recently been approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection. In association, they are more effective and safer than previous available treatments, but more expensive. It is unclear if paying for the additional costs is an efficient strategy considering limited resources. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the expected costs in Chilean pesos (CL$) and converted to US dollars (US$) and benefits in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in a hypothetic cohort of naive patients receiving DCV/ASV compared to protease inhibitors (PIs) and Peginterferon plus Ribavirin (PR). Efficacy was obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison study and costs were estimated from local sources. Utilities were obtained applying the EQ-5D survey to local patients and then valued with the Chilean tariff. A time horizon of 46 years and a discount rate of 3% for costs and outcomes was considered. The ICERs were estimated for a range of DCV/ASV prices. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: PIs were extendedly dominated by DCV/ASV. The ICER of DCV/ASV compared to PR was US$ 16,635/QALY at a total treatment price of US$ 77,419; US$11,581 /QALY at a price of US$ 58,065; US$ 6,375/QALY at a price of US$ 38,710; and US$ 1,364 /QALY at a price of US$ 19,355. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a price of US$ 38,710 was 91.6% while there is a 21.43% probability that DCV/ASV dominates PR if the total treatment price was US$ 19,355. Although the results are sensitive to certain parameters, the ICER did not increase above the suggested threshold of 1 GDP per capita. CONCLUSIONS: DCV/ASV can be considered cost-effective at any price of the range studied. These results provide decision makers useful information about the value of incorporating these drugs into the public Chilean healthcare system.

Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of BMS-820836 in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Major Depression: Results From 2 Randomized, Double-Blind Studies.

Two phase 2B, randomized, double-blind studies assessed the efficacy and safety of fixed or flexible dose of triple monoamine uptake inhibitor BMS-820836 in patients with treatment-resistant depression to demonstrate whether switching to BMS-820836 was superior to the continuation of standard antidepressant treatment. Patients with a history of inadequate response to 1 to 3 adequate trials of antidepressant therapies were prospectively treated with duloxetine 60 mg/d for 8 weeks (CN162-006) or duloxetine 60 mg/d or escitalopram 20 mg/d for 7 weeks (CN162-007). Inadequate responders were randomized to continue their prospective phase treatment or switch to flexible-dose (0.5-2 mg/d; CN162-006) or fixed-dose (0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 mg/d; CN162-007) BMS-820836 for 6 weeks. The primary end point in both studies was mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from randomization to study end point. BMS-820836 flexible (0.5-2 mg/d) or fixed dose of 1 mg/d or greater showed efficacy similar to the continuation of antidepressant treatment, with no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. In the CN162-006 study, the adjusted mean (SE) change in MADRS total score was -8.7 (0.661) and -8.1 (0.656) for BMS-820836 and duloxetine, respectively (P = 0.526). In the CN162-007 study, the adjusted mean (SE) change in MADRS total score was -7.3 (0.830) and -6.6 (0.842) for BMS-820836 of 1 and 2 mg, respectively, and -6.9 (0.602) for the continuation group (P = 0.910). Thus, BMS-820836 was well tolerated, with no evidence of dose-dependent discontinuations due to adverse events, but it failed to demonstrate superiority to the continuation of an existing antidepressant in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Cost-utility analysis of palonosetron-based therapy in preventing emesis among breast cancer patients.

We estimated the cost-utility of palonosetron-based therapy compared with generic ondansetron-based therapy throughout four cycles of anthracycline and cyclophosphamide for treating women with breast cancer. We developed a Markov model comparing six strategies in which ondansetron and palonosetron are combined with either dexamethasone alone, dexamethasone plus aprepitant following emesis, or dexamethasone plus aprepitant up front. Data on the effectiveness of antiemetics and emesis-related utility were obtained from published sources. Relative to the ondansetron-based two-drug therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the palonosetron-based regimens were $115,490/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for the two-drug strategy, $199,375/QALY for the two-drug regimen plus aprepitant after emesis, and $200,526/QALY for the three-drug strategy. In sensitivity analysis, using the $100,000/QALY benchmark, the palonosetron-based two-drug strategy and the two-drug regimen plus aprepitant following emesis were shown to be cost-effective in 39% and 26% of the Monte Carlo simulations, respectively, and with changes in values for the effectiveness of antiemetics and the rate of hospitalization. The cost-utility of palonosetron-based therapy exceeds the $100,000/QALY threshold. Future research incorporating the price structure of all antiemetics following ondansetron's recent patent expiration is needed.

Recent advances, trends and economic considerations in the risk assessment, prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

During the last two decades there have been considerable achievements regarding the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Due to the importance of these symptoms in the aim to streamline clinical processes and to improve patient satisfaction, the debate on the best strategies and also research that focuses on PONV continues. This review summarises the recent developments with respect to the management of PONV. Following a brief review on what is already known on the risk assessment, prevention and treatment of PONV, newer trends in the pharmacological prevention (dexamethasone, neurokinin-1 antagonists, multimodal prevention) will be discussed as well as new insights regarding the value of algorithms for the prevention of PONV. Further, pharmacogenetically based algorithms (according to the metaboliser status) as well as new treatment strategies (dexamethasone, multimodal treatment) will be covered. No drug so far can achieve a reduction of PONV of more than one third. Furthermore, all clinical studies consistently demonstrated that a combination treatment has a simple additive effect without any relevant interaction between different drugs or classes of drugs. The relative reduction of approximately 30% can also be expected from dexamethasone and it is likely that the substances presently in development and in an early clinical use (e.g., neurokinin-1 antagonists) will not represent the new panacea. However, they will probably replenish the existing antiemetic portfolio to better cope with high risk patients. Stratified prevention using pharmacogenetic knowledge is still in the early stages. Algorithms need to be customized to the local settings in order to prove efficient. Treatment remains a most important pillar and there is evidence that the principles of combining antiemetics to prolong effects and improve protection can be similarly applied to treatment. Recent developments in the area of PONV are more related to implementing the already existing evidence than based on the introduction of new molecules. New molecules replenish the pharmacological antiemetic portfolio, which is needed due to the limited efficacy of any single agent available so far. The new neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and the long lasting 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist palonosetron are the latest developments in this context. Treatment is most important and can also be regarded as a secondary prevention. Due to limited efficacy of single treatment interventions, combination therapy may gain more widespread use in the future.

Update on the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy is associated with a variety of side effects, and many of these can be dose-limiting. One of the most dreaded side effects for patients receiving chemotherapy is nausea and vomiting, however. Although in the last 2 decades there have been several advances in the development of new therapies for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), recent pharmacologic advances have significantly improved control of this feared side effect. Antiemetic guidelines help clinicians manage CINV and are updated frequently. Ongoing studies further define appropriate management of patients with CINV; of particular interest is delayed nausea and vomiting. With the addition of the long-acting serotonin antagonist, palonosetron, and the unique neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, control of CINV has improved considerably for those patients receiving chemotherapy. This article discusses CINV and recent pharmacologic advances in controlling this side effect. Guidelines for the management of CINV are reviewed.