Comparative economic outcomes in patients with focal seizures initiating eslicarbazepine acetate versus brivaracetam as their first adjunctive ASD.

AIMS: To study the association between initiation of first adjunctive therapy with eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) vs. brivaracetam (BRV) on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and charges among patients with treated focal seizures (FS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse (IDV) claims data (1 April 2015 to 30 June 2018) were used to identify two cohorts as first adjunctive therapy with ESL or BRV following a generic anti-seizure drug (ASD). The index date was the earliest claim for a new ESL or BRV prescription. Key inclusion criteria were only 1 generic ASD in the 12 months before the index date; ≥1 medical claim with an FS diagnosis. Unit of analysis was the 90-day person-time-block. Changes in HCRU and charges were assessed using a difference-in-differences framework. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were performed. The adjusted model utilized person-specific fixed effects and propensity score-based weighting to control for differences in baseline covariates. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for charge outcomes. RESULTS: 208 and 137 patients initiated first adjunctive therapy with ESL (43.7 years, 51.9% female) or BRV (39.3 years, 51.8% female). Patients in the ESL cohort had numerically larger reductions in all-cause and FS-related inpatient hospitalizations and outpatient visits and FS-related emergency department visits. Compared to patients initiating BRV, patients treated with ESL had significantly larger reductions in total charges (-$3,446, CI: -$13,716, -$425), all-cause (-$3,166, CI: -$13,991, -$323) and FS-related (-$2,969, CI: -$21,547, -$842) medical charges, all-cause (-$3,397, CI: -$15,676, -$818) and FS-related (-$2,863, CI: -$19,707, -$787) outpatient charges, and non-ASD-related prescription charges (-$420, CI: -$1,058, -$78). LIMITATIONS: Claims may be missing, or miscoded; outcomes may be influenced by variables not accounted for in the analysis; only information on submitted charges was included. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with FS, initiation of first adjunctive therapy with ESL was associated with significantly larger reductions in medical and non-ASD-related prescriptions charges compared to BRV.

Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.

INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS: Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom, ≥ 50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and €28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and €27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only €5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of €1190 and 71% or €1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of €25,358 or €38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION: These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.

Brivaracetam for epilepsy.

More than a third of patients with epilepsy cannot achieve freedom from seizures despite taking multiple medications. This article compares brivaracetam to levetiracetam, and provides guidelines for the safe and effective use of brivaracetam.

Retrospective Assessment of a Serum Proteomic Test in a Phase III Study Comparing Erlotinib plus Placebo with Erlotinib plus Tivantinib (MARQUEE) in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The VeriStrat test provides accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the predictive and prognostic role of VeriStrat in patients enrolled on the MARQUEE phase III trial of tivantinib plus erlotinib (T+E) versus placebo plus erlotinib (P+E) in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Pretreatment plasma samples were available for 996 patients and were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to generate VeriStrat labels (good, VS-G, or poor, VS-P). RESULTS: Overall, no significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were observed for the addition of tivantinib to erlotinib. Regardless of treatment arm, patients who were classified as VS-G had significantly longer PFS (3.8 mo for T+E arm, 2.0 mo for P+E arm) and OS (11.6 mo for T+E, 10.2 mo for P+E arm) than patients classified as VS-P (PFS: 1.9 mo for both arms, hazard ratio [HR], 0.584; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.468-0.733; p < .0001 for T+E, HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.546-0.870; p = .0015 for P+E; OS: 4.0 mo for both arms, HR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.264-0.422; p < .0001 for T+E; HR, 0.449; 95% CI, 0.353-0.576; p < .0001 for P+E). The VS-G population had higher OS than the VS-P population within Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (PS) categories. VS-G patients on the T+E arm had longer PFS, but not OS, than VS-G patients on the P+E arm (p = .0108). Among EGFR mutation-positive patients, those with VS-G status had a median OS more than twice that of any other group (OS: 31.6 mo for T+E and 22.8 mo for P+E), whereas VS-P patients had similar survival rates as VS-G, EGFR-wild type patients (OS: 13.7 mo for T+E and 6.5 mo for P+E). CONCLUSION: In these analyses, VeriStrat showed a prognostic role within EGOC PS categories and regardless of treatment arm and EGFR status, suggesting that VeriStrat could be used to identify EGFR mutation-positive patients who will have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study suggests that VeriStrat testing could enhance the prognostic role of performance status and smoking status and replicates findings from other trials that showed that the VeriStrat test identifies EGFR mutation-positive patients likely to have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although these findings should be confirmed in other populations, VeriStrat use could be considered in EGFR mutation-positive patients as an additional prognostic tool, and these results suggest that EGFR mutation-positive patients with VeriStrat "poor" classification could benefit from other therapeutic agents given in conjunction with TKI monotherapy.

Budget Impact Analysis of Brivaracetam Adjunctive Therapy for Partial-Onset Epileptic Seizures in Valencia Community, Spain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: More than 30% of patients with epilepsy have inadequate control of seizures with drug therapy. The goal of this study is to determine the budget impact (BI) of the introduction of brivaracetam to the portfolio of approved drugs in Spain as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset epilepsy in patients over 16 years old with a 5-year time horizon in the Valencia Community, a Spanish region with a population of 5 million. METHODS: The BI model compares the pharmaceutical expenditure on antiepileptics in two scenarios: with and without brivaracetam. It assumes that the introduction and increased use of brivaracetam will lead to a proportional decrease in consumption of coexisting adjunctive antiepileptics and calculates the evolution of the consumption of brivaracetam over 5 years (2016-2020). The model was designed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Data on the candidate population, consumption of antiepileptics, market share and pharmaceutical expenditure were obtained from real-world data. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was carried out on the set of variables involved in the evolution of costs using a Monte-Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The model estimates that the target population eligible for adjunctive antiepileptics will hold at around 2352 between 2016 and 2020. Annual expenditure on antiepileptics is approximately €3.6 million. The number of patients eligible for treatment with brivaracetam would increase from 42 to 179 and annual savings of 0.09-0.37% would be created, representing €41,873 over 5 years (0.23% of the total budget). The sensitivity analysis corroborates that the probability of achieving savings with brivaracetam is around 84%. CONCLUSIONS: Brivaracetam is a therapeutic alternative that allows savings for the health system in patients with non-controlled epilepsy in monotherapy, having a fixed, predictable annual cost (independent of dose) from the first day of treatment as the lack of need for titration means the patient is within a range of therapeutic doses from the first dose.

Anger Assessment in Patients Treated With Brivaracetam.

OBJECTIVES: To assess state and trait anger, adjusted by epilepsy type, seizure control, anxiety-depression status and quality of life, in patients treated with brivaracetam (BRV) from an open study. METHODS: We evaluated prospectively consecutive patients with partial onset seizures in an open-label study. Patients had 5 years or longer of epilepsy and were taking between 1 and 3 antiepileptic drugs. They were treated with BRV and compared with a control group selected from outpatients attending our epilepsy unit who met the following criteria: age ≥16 years and diagnosis of epilepsy with focal-onset seizures at least 1 year before inclusion in the study. The following tests were assessed: State-Trait Anger with the Expression Inventory-2, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory. RESULTS: We recruited 39 patients, 17 treated with BRV and 22 with other drugs, including 13 with levetiracetam (LEV). Mean age was 47.3 years, 43.6% were men. Symptomatic cases, 66% and 52% temporal lobe epilepsy. Antiepileptic drug polytherapy was present in 82.1% of the cases (100% BRV vs 68.2% control group). Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were similar in both groups. When compared with the subgroup of LEV groups did not differ significantly on their Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: This small, open study suggests that BRV increases anger measures less than LEV in epilepsy patients. However, larger, blinded control studies are required to establish whether this apparent difference can be confirmed.

Sensitivity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures: an analysis of Phase III trials of adjunctive brivaracetam.

PURPOSE: Preference-based measures are required to measure the impact of interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. This study assessed the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D-3L in adults with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures. METHODS: Data from three Phase III studies of an antiepileptic drug (adjunctive brivaracetam; n = 1095) were used. Analysis included correlations between EQ-5D-3L and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31P) and seizure frequency. Known group validity was based on ability of the EQ-5D-3L to discriminate between baseline QOLIE-31P total scores, seizure type and number of antiepileptic drugs using effect sizes (ES). Responsiveness assessed proportions reporting highest or lowest scores, overall change using standardized response means (SRM) and change by responder and clinician/patient evaluation groups using ES. RESULTS: Correlations were weak to moderate (ρ = 0.2-0.4) between EQ-5D-3L dimensions and QOLIE-31P subscales, apart from medication effects (ρ < 0.1); seizure frequency was not associated with either measure. Known group analysis had small ES. A quarter (24.9%) of patients had a baseline EQ-5D-3L utility score of 1 (full health) but lower average QOLIE-31P scores. SRMs were small (<0.1) in EQ-5D-3L compared with 0.1-0.4 for QOLIE-31P subscales. Results across the studies were mixed for responder status and clinician/patient evaluation of improvement for EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-3L had weak-to-moderate correlations with QOLIE-31P and varied with QOLIE-31P severity groups, but showed less responsiveness than QOLIE-31P. Given this lack of sensitivity, EQ-5D-3L may not be appropriate for measuring the impact of interventions in cost-effectiveness analysis in this population and disease-specific preference-based measures may be more appropriate.

Levetiracetam para o tratamento de epilepsia / Levetiracetam for the treatment of epilepsy

CONTEXTO: Uma epilepsia é definida como uma condição neurológica caracterizada por convulsões epilépticas recorrentes. Uma convulsão epiléptica é a manifestação clínica de uma descarga anormal e excessiva de um conjunto de neurônios no cérebro. A epilepsia deve ser vista como um sintoma de uma doença neurológica subjacente e não como uma entidade isolada. TECNOLOGIA: Levetiracetam. PERGUNTA: Levetiracetam é eficaz e seguro para o tratamento epilepsia? EVIDÊNCIAS: Revisão sistemática com network meta-analyses comparou a tolerabilidade relativa de todos os antiepilépticos em monoterapia para todos os tipos de epilepsia, bem como a sua eficácia na monoterapia da epilepsia focal. Levetiracetam mostrou melhor resultado de eficácia para número de indivíduos livre de convulsão em comparação com fenobarbital e primidona, e para o desfecho descontinuação por ineficácia terapêutica em comparação com pregabalina e gabapentina. Levetiracetam apresentou pior perfil de tolerabilidade quando comparado com clobazam e lamotrigina e melhor perfil de tolerabilidade do que fenobarbital e primidona. Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas para eficácia e segurança entre levetiracetam e carbamazepina, fenitoína, valproato, etossuximida, topiramato e vigabrina. CONCLUSÕES: Os medicamentos clobazam e lamotrigina, são medicamentos disponibilizados pelo SUS, que não apresentaram diferenças estatisticamente significantes para eficácia quando comparados com o levetiracetam, mas apresentaram melhor perfil de segurança.

Assessment of second-line antiretroviral regimens for HIV therapy in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and toxic effects of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are uncertain when these agents are used with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in resource-limited settings. Removing the NRTIs or replacing them with raltegravir may provide a benefit. METHODS: In this open-label trial in sub-Saharan Africa, we randomly assigned 1277 adults and adolescents with HIV infection and first-line treatment failure to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir) plus clinician-selected NRTIs (NRTI group, 426 patients), a protease inhibitor plus raltegravir in a superiority comparison (raltegravir group, 433 patients), or protease-inhibitor monotherapy after 12 weeks of induction therapy with raltegravir in a noninferiority comparison (monotherapy group, 418 patients). The primary composite end point, good HIV disease control, was defined as survival with no new World Health Organization stage 4 events, a CD4+ count of more than 250 cells per cubic millimeter, and a viral load of less than 10,000 copies per milliliter or 10,000 copies or more with no protease resistance mutations at week 96 and was analyzed with the use of imputation of data (≤4%). RESULTS: Good HIV disease control was achieved in 60% of the patients (mean, 255 patients) in the NRTI group, 64% of the patients (mean, 277) in the raltegravir group (P=0.21 for the comparison with the NRTI group; superiority of raltegravir not shown), and 55% of the patients (mean, 232) in the monotherapy group (noninferiority of monotherapy not shown, based on a 10-percentage-point margin). There was no significant difference in rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events among the three groups (P=0.82). The viral load was less than 400 copies per milliliter in 86% of patients in the NRTI group, 86% in the raltegravir group (P=0.97), and 61% in the monotherapy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When given with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy, NRTIs retained substantial virologic activity without evidence of increased toxicity, and there was no advantage to replacing them with raltegravir. Virologic control was inferior with protease-inhibitor monotherapy. (Funded by European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; EARNEST Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN37737787, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00988039.).

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of making third-line antiretroviral therapy available in sub-Saharan Africa: a model-based analysis in Côte d'Ivoire.

OBJECTIVE: In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV-infected adults who fail second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) often do not have access to third-line ART. We examined the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of making third-line ART available in Côte d'Ivoire. METHODS: We used a simulation model to compare 4 strategies after second-line ART failure: continue second-line ART (C-ART2), continue second-line ART with an adherence reinforcement intervention (AR-ART2), immediate switch to third-line ART (IS-ART3), and continue second-line ART with adherence reinforcement, switching patients with persistent failure to third-line ART (AR-ART3). Third-line ART consisted of a boosted-darunavir plus raltegravir-based regimen. Primary outcomes were 10-year survival and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in $/year of life saved (YLS). ICERs below $3585 (3 times the country per capita gross domestic product) were considered cost-effective. RESULTS: Ten-year survival was 6.0% with C-ART2, 17.0% with AR-ART2, 35.4% with IS-ART3, and 37.2% with AR-ART3. AR-ART2 was cost-effective ($1100/YLS). AR-ART3 had an ICER of $3600/YLS and became cost-effective if the cost of third-line ART decreased by <1%. IS-ART3 was less effective and more costly than AR-ART3. Results were robust to wide variations in the efficacy of third-line ART and of the adherence reinforcement, as well as in the cost of second-line ART. CONCLUSIONS: Access to third-line ART combined with an intense adherence reinforcement phase, used as a tool to distinguish between patients who can still benefit from their current second-line regimen and those who truly need third-line ART would provide substantial survival benefits. With minor decreases in drug costs, this strategy would be cost-effective.

Spatial modeling of HIV cryptic viremia and 2-LTR formation during raltegravir intensification.

Combination Antiretroviral Therapy (cART) can suppress plasma HIV below the limit of detection in normal assays. Recently reported results suggest that viral replication may continue in some patients, despite undetectable levels in the blood. It has been suggested that the appearance of the circularized episomal HIV DNA artifact 2-LTR following treatment intensification with the integrase inhibitor raltegravir is a marker of ongoing viral replication. Other work has suggested that lymphoid organs may be a site of reduced antiviral penetration and increased viral production. In this study we model the hypothesis that this ongoing replication occurs in lymphoid follicle sanctuary sites and investigate the patterns of 2-LTR formation expected after raltegravir application. Experimental data is used to estimate the reaction and diffusion parameters in the model, and Monte-Carlo simulations are used to explore model behavior subject to variation in these rates. The results suggest that conditions for the formation of an observed transient peak in 2-LTR formation following raltegravir intensification include a sanctuary site diameter larger than 0.2mm, a viral basic reproductive ratio within the site larger than 1, and a total volume of active sanctuary sites above 20mL. Significant levels of uncontrolled replication can occur in the sanctuary sites without measurable changes in the plasma viral load. By contrast, subcritical replication (where the basic reproductive ratio of the virus is less than 1 in all sites) always results in monotonic increases of measured 2-LTR following raltegravir intensification, occurring at levels below the limit of detection.

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to improve the evidence base for provision of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) following first-line virological failure. This is particularly the case in Sub-Saharan Africa where 70% of all people living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) reside. The aim of this study was to simulate the potential risks and benefits of treatment simplification in second-line therapy compared to the current standard of care (SOC) in a lower-middle income and an upper-middle income country in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare outcomes associated with reducing treatment discontinuations between current SOC for second-line therapy in South Africa and Nigeria and an alternative regimen: ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) combined with raltegravir (RAL). We used published studies and collaborating sites to estimate efficacy, adverse effect and cost. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2011 USD per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained. RESULTS: Reducing treatment discontinuations with LPV/r+RAL resulted in an additional 0.4 discounted QALYs and increased the undiscounted life expectancy by 0.8 years per person compared to the current SOC. The average incremental cost was $6,525 per treated patient in Nigeria and $4,409 per treated patient in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $16,302/QALY gained and $11,085/QALY gained for Nigeria and South Africa, respectively. Our results were sensitive to the probability of ART discontinuation and the unit cost for RAL. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir was projected to be cost-effective in South Africa. However, at its current price, it is unlikely to be cost-effective in Nigeria.

Rural residence and adoption of a novel HIV therapy in a national, equal-access healthcare system.

Rural persons with HIV face barriers to care that may influence adoption of advances in therapy. We performed a retrospective cohort study to determine rural-urban variation in adoption of raltegravir-the first HIV integrase inhibitor-in national Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare. There were 1,222 veterans with clinical indication for raltegravir therapy at time of its FDA approval in October 2007, of whom 223 (19.1%) resided in rural areas. Urban persons were more likely than rural to initiate raltegravir within 180 days (17.3% vs. 11.2%, P = 0.02) and 360 days (27.5% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.02), but this gap narrowed slightly at 720 days (36.3% vs. 31.8%, P = 0.19). In multivariable analysis adjusting for patient characteristics, urban residence predicted raltegravir adoption within 180 days (odds ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.09-2.70) and 360 days (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.13-2.34), but not 720 days (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84-1.87). Efforts are needed to reduce geographic variation in adoption of advances in HIV therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of raltegravir in HIV/AIDS.

Raltegravir is a first-in-class HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with established antiviral efficacy in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. In this article, we summarize pharmacoeconomic evaluations of raltegravir-based treatment regimens, compared with alternative therapies, in the treatment of patients with HIV infection and/or AIDS. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of raltegravir in treatment-experienced patients conducted using a continuous-time, state-transition Markov cohort model suggest that raltegravir, combined with optimized background therapy, falls within the range that would generally be considered cost effective compared with optimized therapy alone in Spanish, Swiss and UK health systems. In treatment-naive populations, raltegravir was evaluated using a three-stage continuous-time state-transition cohort model. Raltegravir-based initiation treatment strategies (first-line raltegravir) were compared with protease inhibitor and non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor initiation strategies, in which raltegravir was retained for salvage therapy. First-line raltegravir was cost-effective versus retaining raltegravir for salvage therapy in several European populations. A separate economic model was used to evaluate first-line raltegravir against two alternative initiation regimens representing standard clinical practice in Australia; raltegravir proved to be cost effective in both scenarios. In all studies examined, results were sensitive to factors including treatment duration, mortality rate, analytic time horizon, health utility weights, cost of raltegravir and optimized therapy, incidence of opportunistic infection and discount rates. Nonetheless, raltegravir remained cost effective under most scenarios.

Adjusting for covariates in non-inferiority studies with margins defined as risk differences.

Adjusting for covariates makes efficient use of data and can improve the precision of study results or even reduce sample sizes. There is no easy way to adjust for covariates in a non-inferiority study for which the margin is defined as a risk difference. Adjustment is straightforward on the logit scale, but reviews of clinical studies suggest that the analysis is more often conducted on the more interpretable risk-difference scale. We examined four methods that allow for adjustment on the risk-difference scale: stratified analysis with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights, binomial regression with an identity link, the use of a Taylor approximation to convert results from the logit to the risk-difference scale and converting the risk-difference margin to the odds-ratio scale. These methods were compared using simulated data based on trials in HIV. We found that the CMH had the best trade-off between increased efficiency in the presence of predictive covariates and problems in analysis at extreme response rates. These results were shared with regulatory agencies in Europe and the USA, and the advice received is described.

Cost-effectiveness of raltegravir in antiretroviral treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: Raltegravir, a novel integrase inhibitor, has shown great efficacy in reducing HIV viral load among treatment-experienced patients. A cohort state-transition model was used to assess the long-term effect of raltegravir treatment on costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy from a Swiss perspective. METHODS: Patients were stratified into health states according to opportunistic infection status, HIV RNA level, and CD4 count, with each group assigned a treatment cost and utility (quality of life) score. Model inputs came from published studies, clinical trials, and database analyses. Results were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of raltegravir use, expressed in Swiss francs (CHF) as incremental cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: Five years of raltegravir treatment increased discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy by 3.73 years over placebo, with additional discounted cost of CHF 170,347, resulting in an ICER of CHF 45,687/QALY. ICERs ranged from CHF 42,751 to 53,478/QALY for treatment duration of 3 and 10 years, respectively. Results were most sensitive to changes in raltegravir treatment duration, source of estimated quality of life weights, and raltegravir price. CONCLUSIONS: Adding raltegravir to optimized background therapy was a cost-effective strategy for treatment-experienced patients in Switzerland.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of raltegravir in treatment-experienced HIV type 1-infected patients in Spain.

Raltegravir, a novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitor, has superior efficacy with optimized background treatment (OBT) vs. placebo + OBT in treatment-experienced HIV-1 patients. This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of raltegravir from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. A cohort-state-transition model was used to estimate clinical and economic outcomes associated with raltegravir + OBT vs. OBT alone. Subjects were stratified into health states according to HIV RNA level, CD4 count, and opportunistic infection (OI) history, and could transition into different health states over time based on projected long-term efficacy. Each health state was associated with a distinct treatment cost and utility (QoL) score. Model inputs for mortality, resource utilization, unit costs, OI risk, and long-term durability of viral suppression were obtained from clinical trials, published studies, and database analyses. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2007 Euros per quality-adjusted life-year (euro/QALY) gained. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 6% per year based on Spanish cost-effectiveness guidelines. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Five years of treatment with raltegravir + OBT resulted in an additional 4.5 years of undiscounted life expectancy vs. OBT alone. The ICER of raltegravir + OBT vs. OBT alone was euro22,908/QALY and euro31,431/QALY for 3- and 5-year use, respectively. Lower ICERs were observed with lower discount rates (3%) for costs and benefits, lower raltegravir price (20%), and shorter treatment duration (3 years). ICER was also sensitive to analytical time horizon and alternative sources of QoL scores. In treatment-experienced Spanish patients, raltegravir was projected to provide survival benefits and be cost effective.