The long-term clinical and economic benefits of treating advanced COPD patients with single-inhaler triple therapy in Quebec, Canada - The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. METHODS: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function). INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IMPACT trial NCT02164513.

Dose-escalation strategy in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A change in terms of cost-effectiveness.

The analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory mCRC were considered. We have also considered the ReDOS trial, in order to verify if the dose-escalation strategy (practice changing for regorafenib) could influences the results. Differences in OS (expressed in months) between the different arms were calculated and compared with the pharmacological costs (at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and expressed in euros (€)) needed to get one month of OS. Trifluridine/tipiracil resulted the less expensive, with 1167.50 €per month OS-gained. The ReDOS trial further reduce costs with 510.41 €per month OS-gained in favour of regorafenib with the escalation-dose strategy. Both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil can be considered economically sustainable treatments for refractory mCRC, apparently with a lower cost of trifluridine/tipiracil. The adoption of a dose-escalation strategy (ReDOS trial) could reverse the situation making regorafenib more cost-effective than trifluridine/tipiracil.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in The Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the cost utility of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) compared with that of best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapies; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents; and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, in Japan. METHODS: Efficacy data, utility values, and costs were extracted from published studies. The cost and effectiveness of regorafenib and of T/T were compared with those of BSC and examined between the 2 agents over a 5-year time horizon using a partitioned survival analysis. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The costs were year-2018 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The uncertainty and robustness of the model were verified by 1-way sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis compared with different clinical studies. A 2% per-annum discount was applied to expenses and QALYs. The willingness-to-pay threshold used was 5 million Japanese yen (JPY). FINDINGS: Regorafenib and T/T had incremental costs of 11,898,982 JPY (107,781 US dollars [USD]) and 5,000,141 JPY (45,291 USD), incremental effects of 0.249 QALYs (0.280 LYs) and 0.344 QALYs (0.421 LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 47,773,791 JPY (432,734 USD) and 14,550,577 JPY (131,799 USD) per QALY, respectively. Results of sensitivity analyses all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million JPY. In the comparison of the 2 agents, T/T was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. IMPLICATIONS: As a third-line or later treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, T/T is cost-effective compared with BSC, whereas regorafenib is not. It is necessary to adjust the price of regorafenib based on the results of this analysis, with the improvement of clinical parameters such as survival time and adverse events.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102), a novel oral cytotoxic chemotherapy, significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo in heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAS102 in the third-line or later treatment for this population from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate advanced gastric cancer, including three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. Model inputs were derived from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TAGS trial, NCT02500043). Utilities were extracted from public resources. Costs were calculated from an American payer perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: From the US payer perspective, treatment with TAS102 for patients with heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer was estimated to increase costs by $59,180 compared with the placebo, with a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $986,333 per QALY. The costs for progression-free survival of TAS102 group had the greatest impact on the ICERs, as well as the cost of TAS102. CONCLUSION: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) is not a cost-effective choice for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from an American payer perspective.

Economic evaluation of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) or regorafenib for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have been previously treated with or are not considered candidates for available therapies including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-VEGF agents and anti-EGFR agents in Greece. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a third-party payer perspective over a 10 year time horizon. Efficacy data and utility values were extracted from published studies. Resource consumption data were obtained from local experts using a questionnaire developed for the purpose of the study and was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2017 in euros. Primary outcomes were patients' life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY and LYs gained. RESULTS: Total life time cost per patient for FTD/TPI, BSC and regorafenib was estimated to be €10,087, €1,879 and €10,850, respectively. In terms of health outcomes, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.25 and 0.11 increment in LYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, respectively. Furthermore, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.17, and 0.07 increment in QALYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, resulting in ICERs of €32,759 per LY gained and €49,326 per QALY gained versus BSC. Moreover, FTD/TPI was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that FTD/TPI may represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with other alternative therapies as a third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.

Budget Impact Analysis of Eliglustat for the Treatment of Gaucher Disease Type 1 in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1) is a rare, genetic, lysosomal storage disease with no cure. Current treatment options include intravenous (IV) enzyme replacement therapy ([ERT]; imiglucerase, velaglucerase alfa, or taliglucerase alfa) or oral substrate reduction therapy ([SRT]; eliglustat or miglustat). The cost to U.S. payers of an IV-administered drug can vary depending on the site of care (i.e., home, outpatient clinic, or hospital setting). Treatment with oral eliglustat may present an opportunity for cost savings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact from a U.S. payer perspective associated with transitioning patients receiving ERTs to the oral SRT eliglustat for the treatment of adults with GD1. METHODS: A budget impact model estimated the change in pharmaceutical and administration costs resulting from increasing the market share of eliglustat from 12% (current) to 44% (new). The market share for eliglustat was drawn equally from existing shares of imiglucerase (40%) and velaglucerase alfa (40%) and assumed to be static over the analysis period. ERT costs were adjusted to account for site of care-based markup and the proportion of patients receiving infusions in each site of care (home, infusion center, or hospital outpatient). Annual ERT costs were calculated assuming a biweekly dose of 47.4 U per kg, a 72-kg patient weight, and 24 infusions per year. The effect of key variables was tested in the sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: In a new plan with 5 million members and 25 GD1 treated patients, increased use of eliglustat resulted in an annual savings of $1,526,710 and a total savings of $4,580,130 (13.6%) over 3 years. The corresponding annual per member per month savings was $0.025. This is further illustrated in the sensitivity and scenario analyses where the use of eliglustat was cost saving in all cases. Shifting more patients receiving ERT in the hospital outpatient setting to eliglustat resulted in increased savings. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these analyses, increased use of eliglustat resulted in meaningful cost savings to a payer's overall budget. Cost savings are highest among patients switching from ERT administered in a hospital outpatient setting. The results suggest that cost savings are also likely achievable from initiating patients on oral eliglustat instead of infusion-based therapy from the outset of treatment. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Sanofi Genzyme. Evidera received funding from Sanofi Genzyme to conduct this study and prepare the manuscript. The sponsor collaborated on the study design, analysis, interpretation of results, and writing of the manuscript. Nalysnyk is an employee of and shareholder in Sanofi Genzyme. Ward, Cele, and Uyei are employees of Evidera, which provides consulting and other research services to biopharmaceutical companies. Sugarman was also an Evidera employee when the study was being conducted and the manuscript written. This study was presented as a poster at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2016, October 3-6, 2016; National City, MD, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 22nd Annual International Meeting; May 20-24, 2017; Boston, MA.

Cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Brazil; findings and implications.

INTRODUCTION: Vildagliptin is an inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4, indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, combined or not with metformin. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin in the Brazilian context. Areas covered: Using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and CRD, six studies were selected for the economic models. This study utilised cost data in the Brazilian health system to provide the context. Expert commentary: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic disease and represents a challenge for all health care systems. Although guidelines clearly define first-line treatment, there are several other promising treatments. Vildagliptin is one of them, resulting in a mean lifetime increase of 0.31 years compared to metformin alone and 1.19 more life years compared to other metformin combinations. Considering observational data, life years with dual vildagliptin-containing treatments were 0.37 more compared to other dual treatments. However, its high cost versus generic metformin and its unclear safety profile weakens its subsequent cost-effectiveness. Consequently, the incorporation of vildagliptin or its combination with metformin is currently not recommended for the Brazilian Health Care System. This may change as more data becomes available.

Eliglustat tartrate for the treatment of adults with type 1 Gaucher disease.

The purpose of this article is to review eliglustat tartrate, a substrate reduction therapy, for the treatment of Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1). GD is an rare inborn error of metabolism caused by accumulation of lipid substrates such as glucosylceramide within the monocyte-macrophage system that affects the body by causing enlargement of the spleen and liver, destruction of bone, and abnormalities of the lungs and blood, such as anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. GD is classified into three types: GD1, a chronic and non-neuronopathic disease accounting for 95% of GD cases; and types 2 and 3 (GD2 GD3) which are more progressive diseases with no approved drugs available at this time. Treatment options for GD1 include enzyme replacement therapy and substrate reduction therapy. Eliglustat works by inhibiting UDP-glucosylceramide synthase, the first enzyme that catalyzes the biosynthesis of glycosphingolipids, thus reducing the load of glucosylceramide influx into the lysosome. Eliglustat was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration after three Phase I, two Phase II, and two Phase III clinical trials. The dose of eliglustat is 84 mg twice a day or once daily depending on the cytochrome P450 2D6 genotype of the patient.

Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin plus metformin vs generic sulphonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, not controlled with metformin, from a Portuguese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using risk equations from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model with a 10,000-patient cohort and a lifetime horizon. The model predicted microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality in yearly cycles. Patients entered the model as metformin monotherapy failures and switched to alternative treatments (metformin plus basal-bolus insulin and subsequently metformin plus intensive insulin) when glycated hemoglobin A1c >7.5% was reached. Baseline patient characteristics and clinical variables were derived from a Portuguese epidemiological study. Cost estimates were based on direct medical costs only. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: There were fewer non-fatal diabetes-related adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with patients treated with metformin plus sulphonylurea (6752 vs 6815). Addition of vildagliptin compared with sulphonylurea led to increased drug acquisition costs but reduced costs of AEs, managing morbidities, and monitoring patients. Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin yielded a mean per-patient gain of 0.1279 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a mean per-patient increase in total cost of €1161, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €9072 per QALY. Univariate analyses showed that ICER values were robust and ranged from €4195 to €16,052 per QALY when different parameters were varied. LIMITATIONS: The model excluded several diabetes-related morbidities, such as peripheral neuropathy and ulceration, and did not model second events. Patients were presumed to enter the model with no diabetes-related complications. CONCLUSION: Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea is expected to result in a lower incidence of diabetes-related AEs and to be a cost-effective treatment strategy.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and other incretin-related drugs have attracted attention as antidiabetic agents, but they are expensive. The Japanese government has adopted a policy of reducing healthcare costs, and medical institutions must provide medical care while considering economic efficiency. This study was a comparative survey of the usage, treatment effectiveness, and cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. The subjects were patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and alogliptin) at Gifu Municipal Hospital between February 2010 and August 2011. HbA1c: Japan Diabetes Society values (%) and concomitant antidiabetic agents were surveyed for 12 weeks after the start of DPP-4 inhibitors. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the cost required for a 0.1% decrease in HbA1c for 12 weeks was the lowest with vildagliptin (2,478 yen; decrease in HbA1c: 0.75% +/- 0.85%). In a cost analysis with a virtual cohort of 1000 patients, the number of patients who achieved the treatment target (HbA1c 6.5%) was estimated with respect to a virtual cohort created based on the HbA1c level (7.59 +/- 1.13%) at baseline of 307 patients, in cases assuming the use of each DPP-4 inhibitor. In addition, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained with sitagliptin 50 mg as the reference. The number of patients achieving the treatment target was the highest with vildagliptin 100 mg (413 of 1000 patients), and the estimated ICER of 28,359 yen was the lowest. Robustness was also confirmed with a sensitivity analysis. These results suggest that vildagliptin provides a superior cost-benefit.

Newer agents for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In May 2008, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued an updated guideline [clinical guideline (CG) 66] for the management of all aspects of type 2 diabetes. This report aims to provide information on new drug developments to support a 'new drugs update' to the 2008 guideline. OBJECTIVE: To review the newer agents available for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes from four classes: the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue exenatide; dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors sitagliptin and vildagliptin; the long-acting insulin analogues, glargine and detemir; and to review concerns about the safety of the thiazolidinediones. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1990-April 2008), EMBASE (1990-April 2008), the Cochrane Library (all sections) Issue 2, 2008, and the Science Citation Index and ISI Proceedings (2000-April 2008). The websites of the American Diabetes Association, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency were searched, as were manufacturers' websites. REVIEW METHODS: Data extraction was carried out by one person, and checked by a second. Studies were assessed for quality using standard methods for reviews of trials. Meta-analyses were carried out using the Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan) software. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on current standard clinical practice in the UK, as outlined in NICE CG 66. The outcomes for the GLP-1 analogues, DPP-4 inhibitors and the long-acting insulin analogues were: glycaemic control, reflected by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, hypoglycaemic episodes, changes in weight, adverse events, quality of life and costs. Modelling of the cost-effectiveness of the various regimes used the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model. RESULTS: Exenatide improved glycaemic control by around 1%, and had the added benefit of weight loss. The gliptins were effective in improving glycaemic control, reducing HbA1c level by about 0.8%. Glargine and detemir were equivalent to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) (and to each other) in terms of glycaemic control but had modest advantages in terms of hypoglycaemia, especially nocturnal. Detemir, used only once daily, appeared to cause slightly less weight gain than glargine. The glitazones appeared to have similar effectiveness in controlling hyperglycaemia. Both can cause heart failure and fractures, but rosiglitazone appears to slightly increase the risk of cardiovascular events whereas pioglitazone reduces it. Eight trials examined the benefits of adding pioglitazone to an insulin regimen; in our meta-analysis, the mean reduction in HbA1c level was 0.54% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.38] and hypoglycaemia was marginally more frequent in the pioglitazone arms [relative risk (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63]. In most studies, those on pioglitazone gained more weight than those who were not. In terms of annual drug acquisition costs among the non-insulin regimes for a representative patient with a body mass index of around 30 kg/m2, the gliptins were the cheapest of the new drugs, with costs of between 386 pounds and 460 pounds. The glitazone costs were similar, with total annual costs for pioglitazone and for rosiglitazone of around 437 pounds and 482 pounds, respectively. Exenatide was more expensive, with an annual cost of around 830 pounds. Regimens containing insulin fell between the gliptins and exenatide in terms of their direct costs, with a NPH-based regimen having an annual cost of around 468 pounds for the representative patient, whereas the glargine and detemir regimens were more expensive, at around 634 pounds and 716 pounds, respectively. Comparisons of sitagliptin and rosiglitazone, and of vidagliptin and pioglitazone slowed clinical equivalence in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), but the gliptins were marginally less costly. Exenatide, when compared with glargine, appeared to be cost-effective. Comparing glargine with NPH showed an additional anticipated cost of around 1800 pounds. Within the comparison of detemir and NPH, the overall treatment costs for detemir were slightly higher, at between 2700 pounds and 2600 pounds. LIMITATIONS: The UKPDS Outcomes Model does not directly address aspects of the treatments under consideration, for example the direct utility effects from weight loss or weight gain, severe hypoglycaemic events and the fear of severe hypoglycaemic events. Also, small differences in QALYs among the drugs lead to fluctuations in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide, the gliptins and detemir were all clinically effective. The long-acting insulin analogues glargine and detemir appeared to have only slight clinical advantages over NPH, but had much higher costs and did not appear to be cost-effective as first-line insulins for type 2 diabetes. Neither did exenatide appear to be cost-effective compared with NPH but, when used as third drug after failure of dual oral combination therapy, exenatide appeared cost-effective relative to glargine in this analysis. The gliptins are similar to the glitazones in glycaemic control and costs, and appeared to have fewer long-term side effects. Therefore, it appears, as supported by recent NICE guidelines, that NPH should be the preferred first-line insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. More economic analysis is required to establish when it becomes cost-effective to switch from NPH to a long-acting analogue. Also, long-term follow-up studies of exenatide and the gliptins, and data on combined insulin and exenatide treatment, would be useful.

Eletriptan.

Migraine is a multifactorial chronic central nervous system disorder, characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of moderate-to-severe headache. Symptomatic acute treatment of migraine should provide rapid and effective relief of the headache pain. The introduction of the 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists (triptans) expanded the armamentarium for acute migraine pain treatment. Eletriptan is a second-generation triptan with favorable bioavailability and half-life, a high affinity for 5-HT(1B/1D) receptors and selectivity for cranial arteries. Eletriptan (40 and 80 mg) has been shown to be effective as early as 30 min after administration and well tolerated when compared to placebo. In comparative clinical trials, eletriptan 40 and 80 mg were superior or equivalent to other triptans and have shown a very high safety and tolerability profile across the studies performed. Eletriptan showed the most favorable cost-effectiveness profile when compared with other agents in its class.

Anticholinergic drug use for overactive bladder in Sweden: a nationwide pharmacoepidemiological study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Nationwide use and costs of anticholinergic drug for overactive bladder are unknown. METHODS: We performed a nationwide study based on the Swedish Register on Prescribed Pharmaceuticals. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2007, there was a 68.8% increase in dispensed anticholinergic drugs in a population of 9 million. More than 93 million DDDs (calculated average maintenance dose per day) of anticholinergic drugs were dispensed corresponding to an overall DDD/TID (DDD per 1,000 inhabitants per day) of 3.5 per 1,000 persons per year. Approximately two thirds of anticholinergic drugs were prescribed to women, regardless of drug type. In 2007, the cost for anticholinergic drugs was 22 million of which tolterodine comprised 70.8%. Solifenacin and darifenacin steadily increased their DDD/TIDs after market introduction. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, there was a 70% increased rate of expedited prescriptions of anticholinergic drugs for the treatment of overactive bladder in a relatively stable population.

Safety and efficacy of eletriptan in the treatment of acute migraine.

Eletriptan is a new selective serotonin agonist approved for the treatment of acute migraine headaches. To review the pharmacologic, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, safety, and clinical efficacy data for eletriptan, we searched the literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Science Direct databases to gather all published reports from January 1996-October 2004. All English-language reports (abstract or full trial reports) about the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety of eletriptan were reviewed. Eletriptan's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters translate into a favorable safety and efficacy profile. The drug is rapidly absorbed when administered orally, has good bioavailability and central nervous system penetration due to its lipophilicity, and has a long half-life, which contributes to its ability to prevent recurrent headaches. Compared with other serotonin agonists, eletriptan has a longer duration of action and greater lipophilicity. Eletriptan is metabolized through the cytochrome P450 3A4 system; therefore, it does have the potential for clinically significant drug interactions. In clinical trials, eletriptan demonstrated efficacy superior to that of placebo and similar or superior efficacy to that of other serotonin agonists, with limited adverse effects. With clinical use, headache and pain-free responses and headache recurrence rates were similar to those of other serotonin agonists, but the agent is superior to ergotamine tartrate-caffeine. Based on pharmaco-economic data, eletriptan is more cost-effective than other agents in its class. Eletriptan is a safe and cost-effective option for the treatment of migraine headaches.

[Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of oral eletriptan in the treatment of acute migraine in Portugal]. / Análise probabilística de custo-efectividade: utilização do eletriptano no tratamento das crises de enxaqueca em Portugal.

This article explores the application of cost-effectiveness analyses to the use of triptanes (5-HT1 Serotonin agonist) in the pharmacologic treatment of migraine, on the primary and secondary health care, in Portugal. The cost-effectiveness of oral eletriptan (40 and 80 mg) is compared to two matrices defined by the consumption of naratriptan (2.5 mg), sumatriptan (50 and 100 mg) and zolmitriptan (2.5 and 5 mg). The effectiveness vector was calculated based on the time without incapacity caused by migraine. The costs reflect the society perspective. We concluded that the utilization of eletriptan allows health gains with cost reduction in the treatment of migraine, and thereby can be considered a cost-effective alternative to the other oral triptans co-financed by the Portuguese National Health Service.

Triptans for migraine therapy: a comparison based on number needed to treat and doses needed to treat.

OBJECTIVE: Managed care and other decision makers need sound comparative information to support the formulary selection process and reimbursement decisions for the treatment of migraine. The objective of this study was to compare currently marketed triptan therapies using number-needed-to-treat (NNT) and doses-needed-to-treat (DNT) measures. DNT was further used to derive triptan treatment cost to achieve 100 successfully treated patients such that the cost-effectiveness of each treatment regime could be compared from the payer perspective. METHODS: Using published meta-analysis data to categorize patients as treatment success or failure, an NNT and a DNT were derived for each triptan. Treatment success was defined as achieving a 2-hour pain response, sustained through 24 hours postdose. Costs were derived by multiplying DNT by the average wholesale price (AWP) minus 15% for each triptan. RESULTS: Eletriptan 40 mg had the lowest NNT, with 361 patients needing to be treated in order to have 100 patients achieve clinical benefit; rizatriptan 5 mg had the highest NNT (597 patients). Eletriptan 40 mg required 388 doses to successfully treat 100 patients.the lowest number of doses of the triptans considered; rizatriptan 5 mg required the highest number (662 doses). Eletriptan 40 mg had the lowest total triptan cost of USD 5,630 to successfully treat 100 patients. The highest total triptan cost of treatment was USD 11,136 for naratriptan 2.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Eletriptan 40 mg provides the best value in terms of the lowest DNT, assuming an approximately equal AWP discount for each triptan. Eletriptan 40 mg also was found to have the lowest total triptan cost to successfully treat 100 patients. Future research should further explore the utility of DNT in managed care decision making.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of eletriptan 40 and 80 mg versus sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg in the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVES: This article explores the application of cost-effectiveness analysis in a comparison of eletriptan and sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: The study employs data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparison of oral eletriptan (40 and 80 mg) and oral sumatriptan (50 and 100 mg). Analyses were undertaken using two composite measures of treatment outcome constructed to reflect the requirements of patients more comprehensively than the conventional efficacy indicator of headache response at 2 hours. On the cost side of the equation, reflecting the health-care system perspective of the analysis, drug costs for initial dosing, second dosing for nonresponse, and recurrence and rescue medication were taken into account. RESULTS: The analysis found that eletriptan treatment resulted in lower costs per successfully treated attack than those of sumatriptan under both outcome criteria. CONCLUSION: Further refinement of outcomes measurement in migraine would be valuable and eletriptan has a potentially important role to play in the cost-effective management of the disorder.