Preclinical Assessment Addressing Intravenous Administration of a [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-617 Microemulsion: Acute In Vivo Toxicity, Tolerability, PET Imaging, and Biodistribution.

It has been herein presented that a microemulsion, known to be an effective and safe drug delivery system following intravenous administration, can be loaded with traces of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-617 without losing its properties or causing toxicity. Following tolerated IV injections the capability of the microemulsion in altering [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-617 distribution was presented at 120 min post injection based on its ex vivo biodistribution results.

In vivo assessment of a delayed release formulation of larazotide acetate indicated for celiac disease using a porcine model.

There is no FDA approved therapy for the treatment of celiac disease (CeD), aside from avoidance of dietary gluten. Larazotide acetate (LA) is a first in class oral peptide developed as a tight junction regulator, which is a lead candidate for management of CeD. A delayed release formulation was tested in vitro and predicted release in the mid duodenum and jejunum, the target site of CeD. The aim of this study was to follow the concentration versus time profile of orally administered LA in the small intestine using a porcine model. A sensitive liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry method was developed to quantify LA concentrations in porcine intestinal fluid samples. Oral dosing of LA (1 mg total) in overnight fasted pigs resulted in time dependent appearance of LA in the distal duodenum and proximal jejunum. Peak LA concentrations (0.32-1.76 µM) occurred at 1 hour in the duodenum and in proximal jejunum following oral dosing, with the continued presence of LA (0.02-0.47 µM) in the distal duodenum and in proximal jejunum (0.00-0.43 µM) from 2 to 4 hours following oral dosing. The data shows that LA is available in detectable concentrations at the site of CeD.

Burden of Treatment-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is a complication of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment. OBJECTIVE: This real-world, retrospective study used electronic medical record (EMR) data from 3 Swedish clinics to assess the occurrence and economic burden of TIPN in patients with MM. METHODS: Eligible patients had an MM diagnosis in the Swedish Cancer Registry between 2006 and 2015 and initiated treatment during that period. Follow-up was until last EMR visit, death, or study end (April 2017). The current analyses included patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide, carfilzomib, or thalidomide at any treatment line. To discern healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with TIPN from other causes, patients with TIPN were matched with those without on baseline characteristics, treatment, and line of therapy. All analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Overall, 457 patients were included; 102 (22%) experienced TIPN. Patients experiencing TIPN during first-line treatment mostly received bortezomib-based regimens (n = 48/57 [84%]); those with TIPN during second- and third/fourth-line treatment mostly received lenalidomide/thalidomide-based regimens (19/31 [61%], 8/14 [57%], respectively). Patients with TIPN had higher HCRU/costs than those without TIPN (mean differences in hospital outpatient visits: 5.2, p = 0.0031; total costs per patient-year: EUR 17,183, p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Effective MM treatments associated with a reduced incidence of TIPN could result in decreased healthcare expenditure.

Cost-effectiveness of once weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the US, carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 once-weekly plus dexamethasone (Kd70 QW) was recently indicated for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. In current US clinical practice, most patients treated with Kd receive carfilzomib at a previously approved dose of 27 mg/m2 twice-weekly (Kd27 BIW). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of Kd70 QW vs Kd27 BIW regimens which were compared in the randomized phase 3 ARROW trial. METHODS: Based on clinical outcomes (overall survival and utilities) from ARROW, a partitioned survival model was developed to estimate life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Long-term survival was extrapolated using SEER registry data matched to ARROW patients. Costs were estimated using a US healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: The analysis estimated that treatment with Kd70 QW vs Kd27 BIW resulted in an increase of 1.10 LYs, 0.91 QALYs, and additional lifetime costs of $74,858, yielding an incremental CE ratio (ratio of incremental costs to QALYs) of $82,257 per QALY gained. Results were robust to sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with Kd27 BIW, Kd70 QW is the optimal dose that represents a cost-effective utilization of health care budget with incremental CE ratios well below the accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the US.

Association of adverse events and associated cost with efficacy for approved relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma regimens: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Several new treatment options have been approved for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, associations of the efficacy of each approved regimen with adverse events (AEs) and the total cost per cycle were compared with a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed Publisher, and Web of Science were searched from January 1999 to July 2018 for phase 3 RCTs of regimens (approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) used in RRMM. The relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. The primary efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes were progression-free survival with the regimen, grade 3 to 4 AEs, and the total cost per cycle (regimen cost plus average cost of managing AEs). RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 7718 patients and evaluating 14 different regimens were identified. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were ranked highest for reducing progression (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09-0.19; SUCRA, 1) but carried the highest probability of total cost per cycle ($41,420; 95% Credible Interval [CrCl], $58,665-$78,041; SUCRA, 0.02). Panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone were the least effective and least safe (SUCRA, 0.24), whereas bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone emerged as least effective with the highest total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.33). Carfilzomib and dexamethasone emerged as the winner when this regimen was considered in terms of efficacy and safety (SUCRA, 0.61) and efficacy and total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this NMA can provide additional guidance for the decision-making process when one is choosing the most appropriate regimen for RRMM.

Healthcare utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone. Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates. Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2-8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9-6.1) with pomalidomide (p = 0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322-27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412-21,874) with carfilzomib (p = 0.522). Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups. Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Triple Therapy With Telaprevir and Boceprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C: A Decision Analysis From the Brazilian Public Health System Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Because of the lack of evidence regarding long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-generation direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment in Brazil, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing standard dual therapy (peginterferon plus ribavirin [pegIFN/RBV]), boceprevir, and telaprevir for CHC patients. METHODS: We developed a state-transition Markov model simulating the progression of CHC. Long-term outcomes included remaining life expectancy in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Short-term outcomes included sustained virological response rates (SVR). Direct medical costs were obtained from Brazilian databases. A lifelong time horizon was considered and a 5% annual discount rate was applied for costs and clinical outcomes. A willingness-to-pay threshold of approximately $20 000 per QALY was used. We performed multiple sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For short- and long-term scenarios, therapy with boceprevir was dominated by telaprevir, which was more effective than standard dual therapy (75.0% vs 40.4% SVR rate, 13.47 vs 12.59 LYs, and 9.74 vs 8.49 QALYs, respectively) and was also more expensive ($15 742 vs $5413). The corresponding ICERs were $29 854/SVR, $11 803/LY, and $8277/QALY. Based on our model, triple therapy with telaprevir was the most cost-effective treatment for the Brazilian health system. Despite a lack of data regarding the Brazilian population, we incorporated as many applicable parameters as possible. CONCLUSIONS: Telaprevir is more effective and cost-effective than boceprevir. Our model may be applied for other settings with a few adjustments in the input parameters.

Costs of administration, travelling, and productivity losses associated with hospital administration of multiple myeloma drugs in Finland.

AIM: To estimate the drug administration, travelling, and productivity costs associated with infusion or subcutaneous proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatments (specifically carfilzomib and bortezomib) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients in Finland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Price tariffs of Finnish hospital districts are used as the basis of invoicing sent to healthcare service payers. A review of these price tariff lists was conducted and obtained data analysed to estimate the mean unit cost of PI administration visit. Travelling costs stratified by areas with different population densities were assessed, based on the national travelling reimbursement register data maintained by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Productivity costs due to time spent on administration visits and travelling were estimated based on an expert interview and a spatial healthcare accessibility analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen (95%) of the Finnish hospital districts were included in the review. Relevant unit cost information was found for 15 (75%) of the districts. The mean PI administration cost alone was 270€ (95% CI = 189€-351€) per administration and increased to 371€ when travelling costs were included. Productivity costs added, the mean PI administration costs totalled 405€ for bortezomib and 437€ for carfilzomib. LIMITATIONS: The costing rationale of price tariffs may vary between hospital districts. Productivity costs were estimated conservatively, due to lack of data. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of intravenous or subcutaneous PIs to treat MM in healthcare facilities causes significant and potentially avoidable healthcare, travelling, and indirect costs, and they should be included in all health economic evaluations (HEEs). As the cost estimates utilized in this study represent most of central hospitals in the country, they provide useful information for future HEEs. A broader conclusion is that novel oral medications, such as the first oral PI, have a significant potential for reducing administration-related costs of subcutaneous or intravenous PIs.

Modeling Covariate-Adjusted Survival for Economic Evaluations in Oncology.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In economic evaluations in oncology, adjusted survival should be generated if imbalances in prognostic/predictive factors across treatment arms are present. To date, no formal guidance has been developed regarding how such adjustments should be made. We compared various covariate-adjusted survival modeling approaches, as applied to the ENDEAVOR trial in multiple myeloma that assessed carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Cd) versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd). METHODS: Overall survival (OS) data and baseline characteristics were used for a subgroup (bortezomib-naïve/one prior therapy). Four adjusted survival modeling approaches were compared: propensity score weighting followed by fitting a Weibull model to the two arms of the balanced data (weighted data approach); fitting a multiple Weibull regression model including prognostic/predictive covariates to the two arms to predict survival using the mean value of each covariate and using the average of patient-specific survival predictions; and applying an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) derived from a Cox proportional hazard model to the baseline risk estimated for Vd. RESULTS: The mean OS estimated by the weighted data approach was 6.85 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.62-10.70) for Cd, 4.68 years (95% CI 3.46-6.74) for Vd, and 2.17 years (95% CI 0.18-5.06) for the difference. Although other approaches estimated similar differences, using the mean value of covariates appeared to yield skewed survival estimates (mean OS was 7.65 years for Cd and 5.40 years for Vd), using the average of individual predictions had limited external validity (implausible long-term OS predictions with > 10% of the Vd population alive after 30 years), and using the adjusted HR approach overestimated uncertainty (difference in mean OS was 2.03, 95% CI - 0.17 to 6.19). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted survival modeling based on weighted or matched data approaches provides a flexible and robust method to correct for covariate imbalances in economic evaluations. The conclusions of our study may be generalizable to other settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01568866 (ENDEAVOR trial).

Hepatitis C in Brazil: lessons learned with boceprevir and telaprevir.

In 2012, the first-generation protease inhibitors telaprevir (TVR) and boceprevir (BOC) were introduced in the Brazilian health system for treatment of chronic hepatitis C, after their approval by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). However, these medicines were discontinued in 2015. The short period of use in therapy and their high cost require a discussion about the consequences for patients and for the health system of the early incorporation of new therapies. The article presents a qualitative analysis of the incorporation process of both medications in Brazil and the results of a multicenter study that included patients treated with BOC or TVR between January 2011 and December 2015 in five Brazilian cities. The study included 855 patients (BOC: n=247) and (TVR: n=608). The document analysis showed that CONITEC's decision to incorporate BOC and TVR was based on results of phase III clinical trials that compared sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of patients treated with BOC and TVR with rates of those that received placebo. However, these studies included a low percentage of cirrhotic patients. The SVR rates observed in this multicenter study were worse than clinical trials pointed out (BOC: 45.6%; TVR: 51.8%), but similar to those achieved with previously adopted therapies. The discontinuation rate due to adverse events was (BOC: 15.4%; TVR: 12.7%). Based on these unsatisfactory results, the study brings a discussion that goes beyond the therapy outcomes, exploring the incorporation of these high-cost medicines and the related decision-making process, contributing to future decisions in medicine policies and in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.

Biodistribution and toxicity assessment of intratumorally injected arginine-glycine-aspartic acid peptide conjugated to CdSe/ZnS quantum dots in mice bearing pancreatic neoplasm.

Quantum dots (QDs) conjugated with arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptides (which are integrin antagonists) are novel nanomaterials with the unique optical property of high molar extinction coefficient, and they have potential utility as photosensitizers in photodynamic therapy (PDT). Our group previously demonstrated significant benefits of using PDT with QD-RGD on pancreatic tumor cells. This study aimed to evaluate the biodistribution and toxicity of QD-RGD in mice prior to in vivo application. Mice with pancreatic neoplasms were intratumorally injected with varying doses of QD-RGD, and the biodistribution 0-24 h post injection was compared to that in control mice (intravenously injected with unconjugated QD). Various tissue samples were collected for toxicity analyses, which included inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to assess Cd2+ concentrations and hematoxylin-eosin staining for histopathological examination. Fluorescent imaging revealed relatively sufficient radiant efficiency in mice under specific conditions. The ICP-MS and HE data showed no significant signs of necrosis due to Cd2+ release by QDs. The mice survived well and had no apparent weakness or weight loss during the 4 weeks post injection. These findings provide novel insights into the biodistribution of QD-RGD and encourage profound in vivo studies regardless of safety concerns. These findings alleviate safety concerns and provide novel insights into the biodistribution of QD-RGD, offering a solid foundation for comprehensive in vivo studies.

Cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib plus dexamethasone compared with bortezomib plus dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the economic value of carfilzomib 56 mg/m2 and dexamethasone (Kd56) vs. bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM) using ENDEAVOR trial results. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of Kd56 vs. Vd was assessed using a partitioned survival model by estimating progression-free survival, overall survival, and direct costs over a lifetime horizon. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) survival data were extrapolated after matching registry and ENDEAVOR patients. Utilities were sourced from the literature and mapped from patient-reported quality of life in ENDEAVOR to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from life-years (LYs). RESULTS: The model predicted an average gain of 1.66 LYs and 1.50 QALYs with Kd56 vs. Vd, and lifetime additional costs of $182,699, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $121,828/QALY gained. The ICER was $114,793/QALY in patients with 1 prior treatment; $99,263/QALY in those not transplanted, and <$150,000/QALY up to an 85% discount in bortezomib price. CONCLUSIONS: Kd56 is cost-effective for patients with R/RMM at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Trial data in the model may limit generalizability; however, SEER registry data mitigates this challenge. Kd56 provides additional value in key subgroups, and remains cost-effective after steep comparator discounts.

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Time to Next Treatment, and Economic Outcomes in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated with Pomalidomide or Carfilzomib.

BACKGROUND: Negligible real-world evidence exists for later line treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) to assist treatment decisions or reimbursement models, such as episode-based payments. OBJECTIVE: To describe the treatment patterns and clinical/economic outcomes when pomalidomide or carfilzomib is used for relapsed/refractory MM. METHODS: A U.S. claims database was used to identify MM patients with an initial pomalidomide or carfilzomib claim (index date) between February 1, 2013, and February 28, 2015, which was assumed to be relapse therapy. Treatment regimens were defined as all MM chemotherapy observed within 60 days of index. Patients receiving pomalidomide and carfilzomib within 60 days of index were excluded. Time to next treatment (TTNT), a progression proxy, was defined as the addition of a new agent > 60 days from index or as treatment restart following a > 90-day therapy gap. Cost estimations used plan-allowed amounts. Descriptive statistics were used to compare outcomes between treatment groups, and regression models were used to adjust for baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: There were 454 patients initiating treatment with pomalidomide (n = 264) or carfilzomib (n = 190) during the index period. The most frequent initial regimens for pomalidomide patients included pomalidomide + dexamethasone (47.0%) and pomalidomide alone (33.0%); the most frequent regimens for carfilzomib patients were carfilzomib alone (45.3%) and carfilzomib + dexamethasone (14.7%). The most frequent next line treatment for pomalidomide patients who progressed was the addition of (14.0%) or switch to (15.0%) carfilzomib ± dexamethasone and for carfilzomib patients, the most frequent next line treatment was pomalidomide + dexamethasone (9.3%) and carfilzomib alone or carfilzomib + dexamethasone + cyclophosphamide (6.7% each). The median (95% CI) TTNT for pomalidomide patients was 11.9 (10.7-14.8) compared with 9.4 (7.7-10.0) months for carfilzomib (P = 0.060). For patients followed to progression (pomalidomide: n = 100, 37.9%; carfilzomib: n = 75, 39.5%), mean TTNT was longer for patients initiating therapy with pomalidomide (6.9 months) versus carfilzomib (5.3 months, P = 0.016). When adjusted for baseline confounders, pomalidomide patients had a nonsignificant longer time to a subsequent treatment line. Inpatient encounters observed during the index line were very low (mean = 1) for both groups; outpatient encounters were fewer in pomalidomide patients. Adjusted analyses revealed inpatient encounters were higher (P = 0.005), while outpatient use was lower in pomalidomide patients (P = 0.006). Unadjusted median costs incurred during the initial line were similar between the 2 groups (pomalidomide: $102,805; carfilzomib: $127,203; P = 0.110) but significantly lower in pomalidomide patients after adjusting for baseline characteristics (P = 0.013). Unadjusted per patient per month (PPPM) costs incurred over the entire follow-up period were lower in pomalidomide-initiated patients ($18,298 vs. $24,734, P = 0.001) but not statistically significant in adjusted analyses (P = 0.230). CONCLUSIONS: A longer time to a subsequent line of therapy was observed in pomalidomide patients compared with carfilzomib patients, although the difference lost significance in adjusted analyses. Compared with carfilzomib, pomalidomide patients were observed to have lower unadjusted median PPPM costs over the entire post-index period and lower adjusted mean monthly costs during initial therapy. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Celgene. Chen, McGuiness, and Wade are employees of QuintilesIMS, which was contracted by Celgene to undertake this research. McGuiness also owns stock in Pfizer. Parikh, Abouzaid, Purnomo, and Hussein are employees of Celgene and participated fully in the development and approval of the manuscript. Portions of the results of this research were previously presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2016 Annual Meeting; June 3-7, 2016; Chicago, Illinois. Study concept and design were contributed by Chen, Parikh, Abouzaid, McGuiness, and Wade. Chen and McGuiness took the lead in data collection, along with Wade, and data interpretation was performed by Hussein and Wade, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by McGuiness, Chen, and Wade, with assistance from Parikh and Abouzaid, and revised by McGuiness and Hussein, along with the other authors.

[Cost-effectiveness and safety of telaprevir and boceprevir for chronic hepatitis C in real-world clinical practice]. / Coste-efectividad y seguridad de telaprevir y boceprevir para el tratamiento de la hepatitis C crónica en la práctica clínica.

INTRODUCTION: Triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir has proven to be effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with response rates of up to 88%. However, the treatment may be associated with important adverse effects and a high economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and safety of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. METHODS: Retrospective observational study. We included all patients who had started treatment with protease inhibitors before July 31(st), 2013. We evaluated sustained virological response, the cost per patient achieving sustained virological response, and the cost of the supportive treatment for adverse events associated with triple therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included; 35 had been treated with telaprevir (59.3%) and 24 with boceprevir (40.7%). Sustained virological response was achieved by 38 (64.4%) patients: 24 (68.6%) patients in the telaprevir treatment arm and 14 (58.3%) patients in the boceprevir treatment arm. The cost per patient with sustained virological response was 43,555 € (95% CI 35,389-51,722 €). There were no statistically significant differences between the overall costs of therapy with telaprevir, 43,494 € (95% CI 34,795 €-55,092 €) versus boceprevir, 42,005 € (95% CI 32,122-64,243€). The mean cost of supportive care per patient was 1,500 €, while the maximum cost was 11,374 €. Due to adverse events, 8 (13.6%) patients required hospital admission, 22 (37.3%) patients attended the accident and emergency department, and 26 (44.1%) patients needed additional medical consultations. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir resulted in high cost per patient with sustained virological response. Due to adverse events, a high number of patients required supportive care, whose costs should be added to those of triple therapy.

[Hepatitis C: diagnosis, anti-viral therapy, after-care. Hungarian consensus guideline]. / Hepatitis C-vírus-fertozés: diagnosztika, antivirális terápia, kezelés utáni gondozás. Magyar konszenzusajánlás.

Approximately 70,000 people are infected with hepatitis C virus in Hungary, and more than half of them are not aware of their infection. From the point of infected individuals early recognition and effective treatment of related liver injury may prevent consequent advanced liver diseases and complications (liver cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer) and can increase work productivity and life expectancy. Furthermore, these could from prevent further spread of the virus as well as reduce substantially long term financial burden of related morbidity, as a socioeconomic aspect. Pegylated interferon + ribavirin dual therapy, which is available in Hungary since 2003, can clear the virus in 40-45% of previously not treated (naïve), and in 5-21% of previous treatment-failure patients. Addition of a direct acting first generation protease inhibitor drug (boceprevir or telaprevir) to the dual therapy increases the chance of sustained viral response to 63-75% and 59-66%, respectively. These two protease inhibitors are available and financed for a segment of Hungarian patients since May 2013. Between 2013 and February 2015, other direct acting antivirals and interferon-free combination therapies have been registered for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with a potential efficacy over 90% and typically with a short duration of 8-12 weeks. Indication of therapy includes exclusion of contraindications to the drugs and demonstration of viral replication with consequent liver injury, i.e., inflammation and/or fibrosis in the liver. Non-invasive methods (elastography and biochemical methods) are accepted and preferred for staging liver damage (fibrosis). For initiation of treatment accurate and timely molecular biology tests are mandatory. Eligibility for treatment is a subject of individual central medical review. Due to budget limitations therapy is covered only for a proportion of patients by the National Health Insurance Fund. Priority is given to those with urgent need based on a Hungarian Priority Index system reflecting primarily the stage of liver disease, and considering also additional factors, i.e., activity and progression of liver disease, predictive factors of treatment and other special issues. Approved treatments are restricted to the most cost-effective combinations based on the cost per sustained viral response value in different patient categories with consensus between professional organizations, National Health Insurance Fund and patient organizations. More expensive therapies might be available upon co-financing by the patient or a third party. Interferon-free treatments and shorter therapy durations preferred as much as financially feasible. A separate budget is allocated to cover interferon-free treatments for the most-in-need interferon ineligible/intolerant patients, and for those who have no more interferon-based therapy option.

[Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: first 12 weeks of treatment]. / Incidencia, manejo y coste de los efectos adversos hematológicos y dermatológicos durante las 12primeras semanas de tratamiento con triple terapia para hepatitisC.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). METHODS: An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n=36; BOC n=17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522€ (625 [SD=876]€/patient) (TVR 759 [SD=1,022]€/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD=327]€/patient; P>.05). Patients with gradeiii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with gradei-ii toxicity (849 [SD=1,143]€/patient vs. 387 [SD=397]€/patient; P=.053). CONCLUSION: The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy.

Provider Workforce Assessment in a Rural Hepatitis C Epidemic: Implications for Scale-up of Antiviral Therapy.

New recommendations for birth cohort screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the development of new, highly effective antiviral medications are expected to increase the demand for HCV treatment. In the past, antiviral therapy for HCV was almost exclusively prescribed by specialists in the field of gastroenterology and infectious diseases, meaning that people living in rural areas that are underserved by specialists may have poor access to treatment. We investigated the number and geographic distribution of medical providers who actively prescribed direct acting antiviral drugs for hepatitis C in Wisconsin during 2012. Using public health surveillance data and a state-wide prescription drug database, we found that there was 1 treatment provider for every 340 residents known to be living with HCV. However, 51 of 72 Wisconsin counties had no providers who provided HCV treatment in 2012.Scaling up antiviral treatment to address the epidemic of hepatitis C efficiently and equitably will require strategies to increase the number of treatment providers in rural communities. Providing education, training, and support to the primary care workforce serving rural communities should be considered a potentially effective and efficient approach to preventing future HCV-related illness.

[Assessment of work ability index in evaluation of small peptides geroprotective effect].

We have conducted a comparative analysis of the work ability index (WAI) application in evaluation of the effectiveness of small peptides (cytogens) used as geroprotectors in the system of preventive medical nutrition of those working with occupational hazards. Our study revealed the necessity of an inclusion of small peptides into the system of preventive medical nutrition, health promotion in people working with occupational hazards and thus subjected to an accelerated aging. The combined application of peptide geroprotectors makes it possible to restore and enhance adaptive resources as well as to correct work ability and maintain health and well-being in different professional groups.

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Protease inhibitors such as telaprevir (Incivo) are reimbursed in Australia for the treatment of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PR). OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of telaprevir plus PR compared with PR alone in 1) previously untreated patients and 2) patients who had received treatment with PR earlier. METHODS: Sustained virological response rates and average treatment durations of telaprevir and PR (given with or without telaprevir) were taken from the telaprevir ADVANCE and REALIZE clinical trials but were modified to take account of differences in prescribing rules between the trials and Australian clinical practice. The probability of transitioning between Markov disease states was based on data from the Australian Kirby Institute where possible and supplemented using data from the published literature. Utility values obtained from the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire data collected in the ADVANCE and REALIZE trials were used to represent the utility during HCV treatment. Utility values for Markov health states were taken from the published literature. Unit costs (2014 AU $) were taken from Australian sources. RESULTS: In treatment-naive patients, the discounted cost per life-years gained was AU $37,706 and the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year was AU $19,283. In treatment-experienced patients, the discounted cost per life-year gained was AU $23,855 and the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year was AU $14,948. CONCLUSION: Telaprevir plus PR in the Australian setting is cost-effective when compared with PR alone in patients infected with genotype 1 HCV.

Impact of specialty pharmacy on telaprevir-containing 3-drug hepatitis C regimen persistence.

BACKGROUND: Although the recommended treatment of hepatitis C continues to evolve as newer and more effective medications are made available, hepatitis C drug regimens consisting of a 3-drug combination of a protease inhibitor, pegylated interferon, and ribavirin were recommended by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases for the HCV genotype I beginning in 2011. Although more effective than the earlier standard of care, these regimens have complex dosing schedules, prolonged duration, and deleterious side effects. It has been shown that patients tend to discontinue these regimens prematurely. Specialty pharmacies offer specialized care management programs to hepatitis C patients, consisting of such services as regularly scheduled patient counseling, assessing regimen appropriateness, monitoring treatment progress, scheduling refill reminders, and coordinating patient care with prescribers. The use of specialty pharmacies by hepatitis C patients may improve persistence on the 3-drug hepatitis C regimens. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of pharmacy dispensing channel (specialty pharmacy or retail pharmacy) and hepatitis C regimen persistence among patients on a 3-drug hepatitis C regimen containing telaprevir, a widely used hepatitis C protease inhibitor.  METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was conducted using pharmacy claims data from a national pharmacy benefits manager for the period July 2011 to June 2013. Continuously eligible patients who started a new 3-drug regimen containing telaprevir were included in the study and followed for up to 12 months after the index hepatitis C claim. The study outcome was persistence to the 3-drug regimen at treatment week 24 (day 168), representing the completion of an important milestone in the regimen. Patients were defined as persistent if they filled 84 days' supply of telaprevir and 168 days' supply of pegylated interferon and ribavirin each, as required by the regimen protocol. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between dispensing channel and persistence, controlling for differences in demographics, medication burden, out-of-pocket spend per 30-day adjusted hepatitis C prescription, and average days' supply per unadjusted hepatitis C prescription. RESULTS: The final study sample consisted of 1,475 patients-1,182 in the specialty pharmacy group and 293 in the retail pharmacy group. A significantly greater proportion of patients were persistent to the 3-drug hepatitis C regimen containing telaprevir in specialty pharmacy, compared with retail pharmacy (56.0% vs. 39.9%, P less than 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, patients in the specialty pharmacy group had 1.89 times greater odds of being persistent to 3-drug hepatitis C regimens containing telaprevir compared with patients in the retail group (95% CI=1.44-2.48). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who used a specialty pharmacy offering refill reminders, care management, and care coordination with prescribers were significantly more likely to be persistent to 3-drug hepatitis C regimens, compared with patients using a retail pharmacy.