Comparative assessment of efficacy and safety of ambrisentan and bosentan in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: A meta-analysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Two endothelin receptor antagonists, ambrisentan and bosentan, have been demonstrated to be effective individually compared with placebo in the treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ambrisentan and bosentan in patients with PAH. METHODS: Clinical trials were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR), EMBASE and PubMed databases. Weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes (6-min walk distance [6MWD] and Borg dyspnoea index [BDI]). Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated for binary outcomes, including clinical worsening, discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and liver dysfunction. Surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the treatments in each index. RESULTS: Five clinical trials from four published studies (total patients: n = 920) were included. Ambrisentan and bosentan showed no significant difference in 6MWD (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -27.87, 25.31, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.73, bosentan 0.77), BDI (MD: -0.16; 95% CI: -0.98, 0.65, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.83, bosentan 0.66), clinical worsening (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.33, 2.94, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.75, bosentan 0.74) and discontinuation due to AEs (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.11, 5.86, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.47, bosentan 0.57). However, ambrisentan was significantly better than bosentan with respect to abnormal liver function (HR: 23.18; 95% CI: 2.24, 377.20, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.99, bosentan 0.02). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that ambrisentan was similar to bosentan in efficacy, while it exhibited better tolerability with respect to abnormal liver function in comparison with bosentan, in patients with PAH.

Hemodynamics and risk assessment 2 years after the initiation of upfront ambrisentan‒tadalafil in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Upfront combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil has been reported to improve the condition of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) more than with either drug alone. However, little is known about the long-term associated changes in hemodynamics and risk assessment scores. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective analysis of clinical data in 106 patients with newly diagnosed PAH. Clinical evaluations, including demographics, medical history, World Health Organization (WHO) functional class (FC) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), right heart catheterization, and Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term PAH Disease Management (REVEAL) risk score 2.0, were assessed over 48 months of ambrisentan‒tadalafil therapy. RESULTS: At baseline, 9 patients (9%) showed a low (<7), 48 patients (45%) showed an intermediate (7-8), and 49 patients (46%) showed a high (>8) REVEAL risk score. At a median follow-up of 2 years, 45 patients (43%) showed a low, 47 patients (44%) showed an intermediate, and 14 patients (13%) showed a high REVEAL score, along with improvements in WHO FC, 6MWD and a decrease in mean pulmonary artery pressure and N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (all p < 0.001). Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) decreased by 37% from 11.5 ± 6.5 to 7.2 ± 4.1 Wood units (p < 0.001). A total of 61 patients (57%) remained in intermediate-risk or high-risk categories. Low-risk patients had either a decrease in PVR of >50% or a stroke volume within the limits of normal. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil in PAH improves the REVEAL risk score in proportion to decreased PVR and preserved stroke volume but still insufficiently so in approximately 50% of the patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Bosentan for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: Although many studies have reported on the cost-effectiveness of bosentan for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a systematic review of economic evaluations of bosentan is currently lacking. Objective evaluation of current pharmacoeconomic evidence can assist decision makers in determining the appropriate place in therapy of a new medication. Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted in English-language databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit databases, and the Cochrane Library) and Chinese-language databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, and Chongqing VIP) to identify studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of bosentan for PAH treatments. Results: A total of 8 published studies were selected for inclusion. Among them were two studies comparing bosentan with epoprostenol and treprostinil. Both results indicated that bosentan was more cost-effective than epoprostenol, while the results of bosentan and treprostinil were not consistent. Four studies compared bosentan with other endothelin receptor antagonists, which indicated ambrisentan might be the drug of choice for its economic advantages and improved safety profile. Only two economic evaluations provided data to compare bosentan versus sildenafil, and the results favored the use of sildenafil in PAH patients. Four studies compared bosentan with conventional, supportive, or palliative therapy, and whether bosentan was cost-effective was uncertain. Conclusions: Bosentan may represent a more cost-effective option compared with epoprostenol and conventional or palliative therapy. There was unanimous agreement that bosentan was not a cost-effective front-line therapy compared with sildenafil and other endothelin receptor antagonists. However, high-quality cost-effectiveness analyses that utilize long-term follow-up data and have no conflicts of interest are still needed.

Comparative efficacy and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacotherapy of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of all TKIs in CML patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib, bosutinib, radotinib and ponatinib. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SciELo (March 2018). The NMAs were built for six outcomes at 12 months: complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), major cytogenetic response (MCyR), deep molecular response, major molecular response (MMR), complete haematologic response and incidence of serious adverse events. We conducted rank order and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included (n = 5079 patients). Statistical differences were observed for some comparisons in all outcomes. Imatinib 400 mg was considered the safest drug (SUCRA values of 10.3%) but presented low efficacy. Overall, nilotinib 600 mg was superior to the other TKI in efficacy (SUCRA values of 61.1% for CCyR, 81.0% for MMR, 90.0% for MCyR); however, no data on its safety profile at 12 months were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that nilotinib should be upgraded to first-line therapy for CML, although further cost-effectiveness analyses, including the new TKI (i.e., ponatinib, radotinib), are needed.

Assessment of the effects of levosimendan and thymoquinone on lung injury after myocardial ischemia reperfusion in rats.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of levosimendan and thymoquinone (TQ) on lung injury after myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four Wistar albino rats were included in the study. The animals were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups. In Group C (control group), left anterior descending artery was not occluded or reperfused. Myocardial I/R was induced by ligation of the left anterior descending artery for 30 min, followed by 2 h of reperfusion in the I/R, I/R-levosimendan (24 µg/kg) (IRL) group, and I/R-thymoquinone (0.2 mL/kg) (IRTQ) group. Tissue samples taken from the lungs of rats were histochemically stained with H&E and immunohistochemically stained with p53, Bcl 2, Bax, and caspase 3 primer antibodies. RESULTS: Increased expression of p53 and Bax was observed (4+), especially in the I/R group. In IRTQ and IRL groups, expression was also observed at various locations (2+, 3+). H&E staining revealed that that the lungs were severely damaged and the walls of the alveoli were too thick, the number of areas examined was increased during the evaluation. Caspase 3 expression was observed to be at an (1+, 2+) intensity that was usually weak and diffuse in multiple areas. Bcl 2 was not found to be expressed in any of the tissues. H&E staining revealed that that the lungs were severely damaged in the I/R group, with the walls of the channels and alveoli thickened and edematous, and also an intense inflammatory cell migration was observed. Immunohistochemical staining was more prominent in inflammatory areas and structures around the terminal bronchioles. CONCLUSION: The findings in our study have shown that administration of levosimendan and TQ during I/R increases expression of caspase 3, p53, and Bax in lung tissue and has a protective effect on lung as distant organ. We suggest that findings of this study be elucidated with further large-scale clinical studies.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

Simple Determination of Plasma Ponatinib Concentration Using HPLC.

Ponatinib, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor marketed in 2016, is a key drug used for treating chronic myeloid leukemia and Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. This study aimed to develop a simple method for determining plasma ponatinib concentration. The analysis required extraction of a 400-µL sample of plasma and precipitation of proteins using an Oasis HLB cartridge. Ponatinib and bosutinib, which is used as an internal standard, were separated by HPLC using a mobile phase of acetonitrile : 0.037 mol/L KH2PO4 (pH 4.5) (39 : 61, v/v) on a Capcell Pack C18 MG II (25×4.6 mm) monitored at 250 nm, with a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. This assay method was then used for determining plasma ponatinib concentration in a 42-year-old man treated with ponatinib at 15 mg/d. The calibration curve was found to be linear for the plasma concentration range of 5-250 ng/mL with a regression coefficient (r2) of 0.9999. The coefficients of intra-day and inter-day validation under these concentrations were 2.1-6.0 and 4.5-8.0%, respectively. The assay accuracy was -1.5-9.0%, and the recovery was greater than 86%. The plasma concentration of the patient at 2.5 and 3 h after 15 mg ponatinib administration was 43.6 and 49.3 ng/mL, respectively. This method of HPLC equipped with UV detection for determining plasma ponatinib concentration has several advantages, such as simplicity and applicability to routine therapeutic drug monitoring at hospital laboratories.

Levosimendan: new indications and evidence for reduction in perioperative mortality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the last years, the perioperative use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients is spreading. Moreover, newer indications have been suggested such as the treatment of sepsis-associated myocardial dysfunction. In the present review, we discuss the most recent evidences in these settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Levosimendan has been seemingly confirmed to reduce mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In particular, it appears to be the only inotropic drug to have a favorable effect on survival in any clinical setting. Moreover, levosimendan has been shown to exert a cardioprotective action and to reduce acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and ICU stay in cardiac surgery patients. Finally, levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality in patients with severe sepsis and to improve renal outcomes in critically ill patients. SUMMARY: Although a strong rationale likely exists to use levosimendan in the setting of perioperative and critical care medicine, evidence mainly comes from small and often poor-quality randomized clinical trials, whose results acquire significance only when pooled in meta-analyses. Moreover, some aspects related to which subgroups of patients may derive the most benefits from receiving levosimendan, to the optimal timing of administration, and to the potential adverse effects need to be further clarified. Important insights will be hopefully provided soon by the several large multicenter investigations which are currently ongoing.

Assessment of etravirine resistance in HIV-1-infected paediatric patients using population and deep sequencing: final results of the PIANO study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed etravirine resistance in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected children (n=41)/adolescents (n=60) who received twice-daily etravirine 5.2 mg/kg and a background regimen (boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, optional enfuvirtide/raltegravir) in a Phase II, open-label, multicentre trial (PIANO). METHODS: In addition to phenotypes, viral genotypes were assessed by population and deep sequencing (PS and DS) in virological failures (VFs; baseline and end point) and responders (baseline). Minority resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were defined as those with frequencies above 1% and not detected with PS. RESULTS: By week 48, 41/101 (40.6%) patients experienced VF; 17/41 (41.5%) VFs and 22/54 (40.8%) responders had ≥1 baseline etravirine RAM by PS, mainly A98G, K101E, V106I and G190A. Baseline minority etravirine RAMs (n) were detected in 8/40 VFs (V90I [2], A98G [1], L100I [1], V106I [1], E138G [1] and Y181C [2]) and 5/38 responders (V90I [3], A98G [1], V106I [1] and E138G [1]). The most frequent emerging non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs detected by PS (≥3 VFs; n) were the etravirine RAMs Y181C (8), V90I (3), L100I (3) and E138A (3). In 15 of 29 (51.7%) VFs with baseline DS/PS and end point PS data, ≥1 emerging etravirine RAM was detected by PS, which was not detected at baseline by DS in most cases (12/15 [80.0%]). In 10/26 (38.5%) VFs with baseline/end point DS data, ≥1 additional emerging minority etravirine RAM was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of etravirine resistance in adults, adolescents and children experiencing VF are similar. The presence of minority etravirine RAMs at baseline was not consistently associated with treatment failure. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00665847.

Cost-benefits of incorporating levosimendan into cardiac surgery practice: German base case.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-benefit of using levosimendan compared with dobutamine, in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support. METHODS: A two-part Markov model was designed to simulate health-state transitions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and estimate the short- and long-term health benefits of treatment. Hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, medication, and adverse events were key clinical- and cost-inputs. Cost-benefits were evaluated in terms of costs and bed stays within the German healthcare system. Drug prices were calculated from the German Drug Directory (€/2014) and published literature, with a 3% annual discount rate applied. The base case analysis was for a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: The use of levosimendan vs dobutamine was associated with cost savings of €4787 per patient from the German hospital perspective due to reduced adverse events and shorter hospital LOS, leading to increased bed capacity and hospital revenue. LIMITATIONS: A pharmacoeconomic calculation for the specific situation of the German healthcare system that is based on international clinical trial carries a substantial risk of disregarding potentially relevant but unknown confounding factors (i.e., ICU-staffing, co-medications, standard-ICU care vs fast-tracking, etc.) that may either attenuate or increase the outcome pharmacoeconomic effects of a drug; however, since these conditions would also apply for patients treated with comparators, their net effects may not necessarily influence the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support appears to be cost-saving. The results of the analysis provide a strong rationale to run local clinical studies with pharmacoeconomic end-points which would allow a much more precise computation of the benefits of levosimendan.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Early in the Disease Course: Lessons From Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia.

The landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) management has changed with the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the BCR-ABL1 oncoprotein. Imatinib mesylate, followed by nilotinib and dasatinib, has been approved for newly diagnosed patients. Since none of these TKIs show survival superiority, the drug choice is a challenge. Even so, the rate of deeper and earlier responses is higher with second-generation TKIs than it is with imatinib, and, in general, better response is associated with a survival advantage, regardless of TKI type being used. Patients should be monitored carefully for response, and treatment failure should prompt a timely switch to another TKI. Side effect profile and drug cost are other important considerations in therapy choice. In several clinical studies, achieving undetectable and durable disease status allowed some patients to discontinue the TKI and enjoy long-term treatment-free remission. Cure for CML may be possible with TKIs alone or TKIs in combination with other investigational therapies. However, due to lack of long-term outcome data and absence of consensus for the definition of optimal response and time to stop TKIs, discontinuation is discouraged outside of a clinical trial.

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.

Assessment of sustained effects of levosimendan and dobutamine on left ventricular systolic functions by using novel tissue Doppler derived indices in patients with advanced heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing levosimendan vs. dobutamine have revealed that levosimendan is better in relieving symptoms. Echocardiographic studies have been done using second measurements immediately following a dobutamine infusion or while it was still being administered. The aim of our study was assessment of sustained effects of 24 h levosimendan and dobutamine infusions on left ventricular systolic functions. METHODS: A total of 61 patients with acutely decompensated heart failure with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV symptoms were randomized to receive either levosimendan or dobutamine 2:1 in an open label fashion. Before and 5 days after the initiation of infusions, functional class was assessed, N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mitral inflow peak E and A wave velocity, and E/A ratios were measured; using tissue Doppler imaging, isovolumic myocardial acceleration (IVA), peak myocardial velocity during isovolumic contraction (IVV), peak systolic velocity during ejection period (Sa), early (E') and late (A') diastolic velocities, and E'/A' and E/E' ratios were measured. RESULTS: The NYHA class improved in both groups, but improvements were prominent in the levosimendan group. NT-proBNP levels were significantly reduced in the levosimendan group. Improvements in LVEF and diastolic indices were significant in the levosimendan group. Tissue Doppler-derived systolic indices of IVV and IVA increased significantly in the levosimendan group. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions continue after a levosimendan infusion.

[Efficiency of initiation with ambrisentan versus bosentan in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension]. / Eficiencia del inicio con ambrisentan frente a bosentan en el tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial pulmonar.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of initiation with endothelin receptor antagonists, ambrisentan or bosentan, followed by sequential combination with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors and prostanoids in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, from the Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed based on the four New York Heart Association functional classes. A panel of three experts reached a consensus on patient management based on clinical practice. Patients revised their treatment every 12 weeks, based on their health status and previous medication records. Pharmacological treatment costs and costs associated with very frequent adverse events (AE) were considered in a horizon of 60 weeks. Outcomes were measured in qualityadjusted life years (QALY). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: No clinically relevant differences in QALY per-patient and year were found for initiation with ambrisentan and bosentan: 0.6853 and 0.6902, respectively. Initiation with ambrisentan resulted in lower pharmacological treatment and AE management costs: ?35,550 and ?117 versus ?40,224 and ?171. In the sensitivity analysis, initiation with ambrisentan resulted in a negative significant cost difference: ?-4,982; CI95%[?- 8,014; ?-2,500]; while no significant differences in QALY were found: -0.0044; CI95%[-0.0189; 0.0101]. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation with ambrisentan followed by sequential combination with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors and prostanoids yields comparable outcomes at lower costs than initiation with bosentan.

Objetivo: Se pretende evaluar la eficiencia del tratamiento secuencial de combinación de la hipertensión arterial pulmonar iniciado con antagonistas del receptor de la endotelina, ambrisentan o bosentan, seguido de inhibidores de la fosfodiesterasa- 5 y prostanoides, desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Métodos: Se desarrolló un modelo de Markov basado en las cuatro clases funcionales de la New York Heart Association. Un panel de tres expertos alcanzó un consenso sobre el manejo del paciente basado en la práctica clínica. Los pacientes revisaron su tratamiento cada 12 semanas, en función de su estado de salud y de la medicación recibida previamente. Se incluyeron costes farmacológicos y costes asociados al manejo de eventos adversos (EA) muy frecuentes, en un horizonte de 60 semanas. Los resultados se expresaron en términos de los años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC). Se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico. Resultados: No se encontraron diferencias clínicamente relevantes en los AVAC por paciente y año para el inicio con ambrisentan y bosentan: 0,6853 y 0,6902, respectivamente. El inicio con ambrisentan resultó en un coste farmacológico y asociado al manejo de EA menor: 35.550 ??y 117 ??frente a 40.224 ??y 171 ?. En el análisis de sensibilidad, el inicio con ambrisentan presentó una diferencia de costes totales negativa y significativa: -4.982 ?; IC95%[-8.014 ?; -2.500 ?]; mientras que no se detectaron diferencias significativas en los AVAC: -0,0044; IC95%[-0,0189; 0,0101]. Conclusiones: El tratamiento secuencial de combinación de la HAP iniciado con ambrisentan, seguido de inhibidores de la fosfodiesterasa- 5 y prostanoides, proporciona resultados en salud comparables y menores costes que el tratamiento iniciado con bosentan.

Economic evaluation of levosimendan versus dobutamine for the treatment of acute heart failure in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Inodilators are the first-choice class of drugs for the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF). Levosimendan is a relatively recent inodilatory agent, presenting superior outcomes in comparison with traditional inotropes. METHODS: An economic evaluation of levosimendan for the treatment of AHF in Italy was performed. In a retrospective study conducted on patients with AHF admitted to a teaching hospital in Rome, two groups were derived from an observational registry: 147 patients treated with levosimendan and 145 treated with dobutamine. Follow-up was at 1 year after treatment. In the reference study looked at in this paper, treatment with levosimendan reduced mean length of stay (LOS) by 1.5 days (P<0.05). Reduction in the rehospitalization rate was 6.7% (P<0.05). Mortality rate at 1 month was reduced by 4.8% (P<0.05). RESULTS: Based on the reference study, a cost analysis from the hospital perspective was carried out. The incremental cost of treatment with levosimendan (€697) was equivalent to the incremental savings (€694), the latter being obtained from the reduction in LOS (€508) and rehospitalization rate (€186). CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of this study, and even neglecting all nonmonetary health gains as additional outcomes, levosimendan appears to be a competitive alternative compared with dobutamine for the treatment of AHF in the Italian hospital setting.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with etravirine in treatment-experienced adults with HIV-1 infection.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of etravirine (INTELENCE), a novel nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, used in combination with a background regimen that included darunavir/ritonavir, from a Canadian Provincial Ministry of Health perspective. DESIGN: A Markov model with a 3-month cycle time and six health states based on CD4 cell count ranges was developed to follow a hypothetical cohort of treatment-experienced adults with HIV-1 infection through initial and subsequent treatment regimens. METHODS: Costs (in 2009 Canadian dollars), utilities, and HIV-related mortality data for each health state as well as non-HIV-related mortality data were estimated from Canadian sources and published literature. Transition probabilities between health states and first-year hospitalization and mortality rates were derived from clinical trial data. Incremental 1-year costs per additional adult with viral load less than 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks and incremental lifetime costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated using a 5% discount rate. Sensitivity and variability analyses and model validation were performed. RESULTS: Etravirine was associated with an increased probability of achieving less than 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks of 0.205 and an estimated gain of 0.66 discounted (1.48 undiscounted) QALYs over a lifetime. The incremental 1-year cost per additional person with viral load less than 50 copies/ml was $23,862. The lifetime incremental cost per QALY gained was $49,120. For the uncertainty ranges and variability scenarios tested for the lifetime horizon, the cost-effectiveness ratio was between $28,859 and 66,249. CONCLUSION: When compared with optimized standard of care including darunavir/ritonavir, adding etravirine represents a cost-effective option for treatment-experienced adults in Canada.