Cost-effectiveness analysis of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte stimulating factor for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and economics of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in the primary prevention of chemotherapy-related neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 181 patients with NSCLC who received intermediate risk chemotherapy were collected from the information system of a tertiary hospital in China. Patients were categorized into two groups: those treated with mecapegfilgrastim (n = 91) and those treated with rhG-CSF (n = 90). The clinical efficacy rates of neutropenia prevention were used as effect indicators, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Logistic regression, generalized linear regression, and bootstrap methods were used for sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the mecapegfilgrastim and rhG-CSF groups in clinical efficacy rates (98.9 vs. 97.8%). However, the total cost in the mecapegfilgrastim group was significantly higher than that in the rhG-CSF group (16,341.6 CNY vs. 14,371.1 CNY, p = 0.03). The cost-minimization analysis shows that mecapegfilgrastim is not cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses confirm that these results are robust. CONCLUSION: Compared with rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim is not a cost-effective strategy for NSCLC patients in neutropenia prevention in China.

A direct healthcare cost analysis of recombinant LH versus hMG supplementation on FSH during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.

PURPOSE: We have previously published a retrospective matched-case control study comparing the effect of recombinant LH (r-hLH) versus highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) supplementation on the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The result from that study showed that the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) was significantly higher in the r-hLH group (53% vs. 64%, p = 0.02). In this study, we aim to do a cost analysis between these two groups based on our previous study. METHODS: The analysis consisted of 425 IVF and ICSI cycles in our previous study. There were 259 cycles in the r-hFSH + hMG group and 166 cycles in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The total cost related to the treatment of each patient was recorded. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed and created. RESULTS: The total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group than in the r-hFSH + hMG group ($4550 ± 798.86 vs. $4290 ± 734.6, p = 0.003). However, the mean cost per live birth in the r-hFSH + hMG group was higher at $8052, vs. $7059 in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The CEAC showed that treatment with hFSH + r-hLH proved to be more cost-effective than treatment with r-hFSH + hMG. Willingness-to-pay was evident when considering a hypothetical threshold of $18,513, with the r-hFSH + r-hLH group exhibiting a 99% probability of being considered cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The cost analysis showed that recombinant LH is more cost-effective than hMG supplementation on r-hFSH during COH in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.

Healthcare costs among hemophilia A patients in the United States treated with rurioctocog alfa pegol (FVIII-PEG) or antihemophilic factor (recombinant), FC fusion protein (rFVIIIFc) using real-world data.

AIMS: To compare healthcare costs in patients with non-inhibitor hemophilia A treated with Rurioctocog Alfa Pegol (FVIII-PEG) versus Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), FC Fusion Protein (rFVIIIFc). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Administrative claims data from the Merative MarketScan Commercial (Commerical) and Medicaid (Medicaid) databases were used for these analyses. Males with non-inhibitor hemophilia A treated with FVIII-PEG or rFVIIIFc from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2021 were identified (earliest treatment = index). Patients were required to have continuous database enrollment for six months before and after the index date. Follow-up was variable in length until disenrollment or study end. All-cause and hemophilia-related healthcare costs were reported per-patient per month [PPPM] and the average weekly dose during follow-up was compared between treatment groups. Generalized linear regressions were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted differences in total costs and weekly dosage in the two treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 131 FVIII-PEG (66 Commercial; 65 Medicaid) and 204 rFVIIIFc (111 Commercial; 93 Medicaid) patients were eligible. Mean age was 20.5 and 24.4 for FVIII-PEG and rFVIIIFc in Commercial and 14.9 and 17.5 for FVIII-PEG and rFVIIIFc in Medicaid. PPPM mean (standard deviations [SD]) total healthcare costs in Commercially insured patients were $35,868 [$21,717] for FVIII-PEG vs $40,424 [$25,882] for rFVIIIFc. Costs in Medicaid were $27,495 [$23,243] for FVIII-PEG vs $30,237 [$28,430] for rFVIIIFc. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the costs for rFVIIIFc (vs FVIII-PEG) were higher by $5,215 in Commercial and $3,895 in Medicaid, but the differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Similar findings were observed for hemophilia-specific healthcare costs. The adjusted mean weekly dose was 6,047 vs 4,892 IU, p = 0.21 for FVIII-PEG vs rFVIIIFc in Commercial and 5,549 vs 7,228 IU, p = 0.07 for FVIII-PEG vs rFVIIIFc in Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare costs and treatment dosing were similar (p > 0.05) for non-inhibitor hemophilia A patients treated with FVIII-PEG and rFVIIIFc.

Characterization of a novel recombinant calcium-binding protein from Arca subcrenata and its anti-hepatoma activities in vitro and in vivo.

Previous studies demonstrated that ASP-3 was a novel calcium-binding protein from Arca subcrenata that effectively inhibited the proliferation of HepG2 cells. To further study the antitumor activity and mechanism of ASP-3, the cytotoxic effects of recombinant ASP-3 were evaluated in HepG2 cells. The results demonstrated that ASP-3 inhibited the proliferation of HepG2 cells by competitively binding to the EGF binding pocket of EGFR and inhibiting the JAK-STAT, RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK, and PI3K-Akt-mTOR signaling pathways mediated by EGFR. ASP-3 significantly inhibited tumor growth in a HepG2 cell subcutaneous xenograft nude mouse model, and its (25 mg/kg and 75 mg/kg) tumor inhibition rates were 46.92 % and 60.28 %, respectively. Furthermore, the crystal structure of ASP-3 was resolved at 1.4 Å. ASP-3 formed as a stable dimer and folded as an EF-Hand structure. ASP-3 stably bound to domain I and domain III of the EGFR extracellular region by using molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation analysis. Compared with the endogenous ligand EGF, ASP-3 displayed a stronger interaction with EGFR. These experimental results indicated that recombinant ASP-3 possessed an effective anti-hepatoma effect. So, it might be a potential molecule for liver cancer therapy.

Analysis of Wholesale Drug Acquisition and Laboratory Assessment Costs Between Heparin Compared With Bivalirudin-Based Systemic Anticoagulation Strategies in Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the wholistic costs of systemic anticoagulation delivery in heparin versus bivalirudin-based maintenance of adult patients supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large academic ECMO center. PATIENTS: Adults on ECMO receiving heparin or bivalirudin for primary maintenance systemic anticoagulation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Electronic data were abstracted from a database maintained by our ECMO center, which transitioned to a preferred bivalirudin-based anticoagulation management in 2017. The pretransition group consisted of 126 patients (123 heparin and three bivalirudin), whereas the posttransition group included 275 patients (82 heparin and 193 bivalirudin). Drug costs were estimated using the wholesale acquisition cost, and laboratory assays costs were estimated using reimbursement fee schedules. Cost data were normalized to the duration of the ECMO run and reported in U.S. Dollar per ECMO day. Following the practice change, bivalirudin patients were less likely to receive AT supplementation (31.0 vs 12.4%; p < 0.0001) and had fewer coagulation assays ordered (6.1 vs 5.4 per ECMO day; p = 0.0004). After the transition, there was a dramatic decrease in costs related to AT assay assessments ($11.78 [interquartile range {IQR}, $9.48-$13.09] vs $1.03 [IQR, $0-$5.75]; p < 0.0001) and AT supplementation ($0 [IQR, $0-$312.82] vs $0 [IQR, $0-$0]; p < 0.0001) per ECMO day. Unadjusted survival at 28 days was higher posttransition (64.3 vs 74.9%; p = 0.0286). CONCLUSIONS: Antithrombin assays and supplementation compromise a significant proportion of heparin-based anticoagulation costs in ECMO patients and is substantially reduced when a bivalirudin-based anticoagulation strategy is deployed. A favorable association exists between the aggregate cost of administration of bivalirudin compared with heparin-based systemic anticoagulation in adults supported on ECMO driven by reductions in antithrombin activity assessments and the cost of antithrombin replacement.

Evaluating the financial impact of utilizing recombinant porcine factor VIII or recombinant FVIIa for patients with acquired hemophilia A.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the financial impact of utilizing rpFVIII or rFVIIa during a hospital admission for the diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A (AHA) by reviewing the margin between the cost to the hospital for providing care and the amount the hospital is reimbursed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in the US. METHODS: Data source was the Medicare Limited Data Set, which contains claims for hospitalizations, charges, and amounts reimbursed by CMS. Study patients were hospitalized with AHA and treated with rpFVIII and/or rFVIIa between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2019. CMS Fiscal Year 2020 Impact Files, with hospital-level cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs), were used to estimate hospital costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate margins at different CCRs. RESULTS: Hospital margins were, on average, positive with use of either rpFVIII or rFVIIa (rpFVIII: $51,548.89; rFVIIa: $35,943.80). Sensitivity analysis results suggest that the use of rpFVIII is similiar, compared with rFVIIa for a large majority of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: While there may be higher reimbursement for rpFVIII hospitalizations, this analysis suggests that the use of rpFVIII, compared to rFVIIa, may have no impact on hospital finances for the majority of hospitals, despite rpFVIII's higher per unit cost.

Assessment of compatibility of rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 with neonatal intravenous medications.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human (rh)IGF-1/IGFBP-3 protein complex, administered as a continuous intravenous infusion in preterm infants, is being studied for the prevention of complications of prematurity. METHODS: We conducted in vitro studies to evaluate the physical and chemical compatibility of rhIGF-1/IGFBP-3 with medications routinely administered to preterm neonates. In vitro mixing of rhIGF-1/IGFBP-3 drug product with small-molecule test medications plus corresponding controls was performed. Physical compatibility was defined as no color change, precipitation, turbidity, gas evolution, no clinically relevant change in pH/osmolality or loss in medication content. Chemical compatibility of small molecules was assessed using liquid chromatography (e.g., reverse-phase HPLC and ion chromatography), with incompatibility defined as loss of concentration of ≥ 10%. A risk evaluation was conducted for each medication based on in vitro compatibility data and potential for chemical modification. RESULTS: In vitro physical compatibility was established for 11/19 medications: caffeine citrate, fentanyl, fluconazole, gentamicin, insulin, intravenous fat emulsion, midazolam, morphine sulfate, custom-mixed parenteral nutrition solution (with/without electrolytes), parenteral nutrition solution + intravenous fat emulsion, and vancomycin (dosed from a 5 mg/mL solution), but not for 8/19 medications: amikacin, ampicillin, dopamine, dobutamine, furosemide, meropenem, norepinephrine, and penicillin G, largely owing to changes in pH after mixing. Small-molecule compatibility was unaffected post-mixing, with no loss of small-molecule content. For physically compatible medications, risk analyses confirmed low probability and severity of a risk event. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 drug product with various medications was assessed by in vitro studies using case-by-case risk analyses to determine the suitability of the products for co-administration.

Cost-effectiveness of bivalirudin in pediatric ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent data suggesting improved outcomes with bivalirudin vs heparin in pediatric Ventricular assist devices (VAD), higher costs remain a barrier. This study quantified trends in bivalirudin use and compared outcomes, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness associated with bivalirudin vs heparin. METHODS: Children age 0 to 6 year who received VAD from 2009 to 2021 were identified in Pediatric Health Information System. Bivalirudin use was evaluated using trend analysis and outcomes were compared using Fine-Gray subdistrubtion hazard ratios (SHR). Daily-level hospital costs were compared due to differences in length of stay. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Of 691 pediatric VAD recipients (median age 1 year, IQR 0-2), 304 (44%) received bivalirudin with 90% receiving bivalirudin in 2021 (trend p-value <0.01). Bivalirudin had lower hospital mortality (26% vs 32%; adjusted SHR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.83) driven by lower VAD mortality (20% vs 27%; adjusted SHR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.77) after adjusting for year, age, diagnosis, and center VAD volume. Post-VAD length of stay was longer for bivalirudin than heparin (median 91 vs 64 days, respectively, p < 0.001). Median daily-level costs were lower among bivalirudin (cost ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.96) with higher pharmacy costs offset by lower imaging, laboratory, supply, and room/board costs. Estimated ICER for bivalirudin vs heparin was $61,192 per quality-adjusted life year gained with a range of $27,673 to $131,243. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin use significantly increased over the past decade and is now used in 90% young pediatric VAD recipients. Bivalirudin was associated with significantly lower hospital mortality and an ICER <$65,000, making it a cost-effective therapy for pediatric VAD recipients.

Cost comparison of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars for inpatient prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia.

INTRODUCTION: The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice. The coordination of care associated with filgrastim can often be a barrier to patient discharge. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient cost of daily filgrastim to single dose pegfilgrastim and biosimilars. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to The James who received at least one dose of filgrastim between June 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 were retrospectively identified. This study compared the inpatient cost of filgrastim and biosimilars associated with one chemotherapy cycle to the potential inpatient cost of pegfilgrastim and biosimilars based on average sales price (ASP). Additionally, the number and duration of discharge prescriptions for filgrastim was determined. RESULTS: Of the 44 unique patient encounters that met inclusion criteria, 19 received 300-mcg doses of filgrastim and 25 received 480-mcg doses. The median number of doses administered per admission was eight. If each of these patients were to instead receive the most inexpensive biosimilar, pegfilgrastim reference product, the cost would be 216% higher than with filgrastim-sndz. At discharge, 15 patients (34%) received a prescription for filgrastim to be continued for a median duration of 6 days. CONCLUSION: Based on ASP, pegfilgrastim was more costly than filgrastim. Potential rebates and negotiation power may alter the financial outlook of adding pegfilgrastim to inpatient formulary. Exploration of delays in discharge due to insurance coordination for filgrastim continuation in the outpatient setting may also impact formulary decisions.

Long-Term Assessment of Bone Regeneration in Nonunion Fractures Treated with Compression-Resistant Matrix and Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Dogs.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess bone density, bone architecture and clinical function of canine nonunion distal appendicular long bone fractures with a defect treated with fixation, compression-resistant matrix and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with dogs at least 1-year post treatment. Computed tomography was performed and quantitative measurements from previous fracture sites were compared with measurements from contralateral limbs. Subjective evaluation included gait assessment and palpation. RESULTS: Six patients met the inclusion criteria. The rhBMP-2 treated bone exhibited higher density at the periphery and lower density in the centre, similar to the contralateral limb. All patients were weight bearing on the treated limb and all fractures were healed. CONCLUSION: The rhBMP-2-treated bone underwent restoration of normal architecture and density. Acceptable limb function was present in all patients. The results of this study can serve as a basis for long-term response in treating nonunion fractures in veterinary patients.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

The Clinical Efficacy and Economic Benefits of Recombinant Human Thrombopoietin for the Treatment of Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Thrombocytopenia.

Even though cytopenia caused by either chemotherapy or radiotherapy is a common complication in cancer patients, chemoradiotherapy remains an essential treatment for the majority of patients. The purpose of this study was to look into the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO) in treating chemo- or chemoradiotherapy-induced grade II, III, and IV thrombocytopenia. From December 2019 to November 2020, 233 lung cancer patients admitted to our hospital with chemotherapy- or chemoradiotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia were enrolled and treated with rhTPO. The study's findings revealed a significant disparity in the use of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with grade II, III, and IV thrombocytopenia. All costs, including rhTPO treatment costs, platelet costs, drug costs, and nondrug costs, tended to rise as the severity of thrombocytopenia increased. In the treatment of chemotherapy or radiotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia, rhTPO has shown good clinical efficacy. In the treatment of grade II thrombocytopenia, rhTPO has a favorable economic evaluation. As a result, early intervention and thrombocytopenia treatment should be provided, which warrants further clinical investigation.

Activated prothrombin complex concentrate to treat bleeding events in acquired hemophilia A: BAHAS study.

OBJECTIVE: Activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) is a bypassing agent indicated to treat bleeds in patients with acquired hemophilia A (AHA). Nevertheless, its efficacy and safety in the real-world setting have not often been addressed. METHODS: We report the experience of Spanish reference centers for coagulation disorders and from acquired hemophilia Spanish Registry (AHASR) from August 2012 to February 2021. Follow-up period of 30 days after aPCC withdrawal. RESULTS: Thirty patients with a median age of 70 years old, suffering from 51 bleeds treated with aPCC were finally evaluated. As first-line treatment, aPCC stopped bleeding in 13 of 14 (92.9%) cases. aPCC as the second line after recombinant factor VIIa failure, stopped bleeding in all cases. In 17 patients, aPCC was used far from initial bleed control as prophylaxis of rebleeding with 94% effectiveness. No thromboembolic episodes were communicated. One patient developed hypofibrinogenemia, which did not prevent aPCC from halting bleeding. No other serious adverse events possibly or probably associated with aPCC were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This data support aPCC as hemostatic treatment in AHA with high effectiveness and excellent safety profile in acute bleeds and as extended use to prevent rebleedings, even in aging people with high cardiovascular risk.

Eficacia y seguridad de ecalantida en el tratamiento de los ataques agudos en pacientes con angioedema hereditario / Efficacy and safety of ecalantide in the treatment of acute attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema

ANTECEDENTES El presente dictamen expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de ecalantida como tratamiento de los ataques agudos del angioedema hereditario (HAE, sigla del inglés hereditary angioedema). ASPECTOS GENERALES El HAE es una enfermedad genética rara (autosómica dominante), caracterizada por episodios recurrentes de angioedema sin urticaria, que afecta principalmente la piel y mucosas de las vías respiratorias superiores y tracto gastrointestinal (Zuraw 2008). Se desconoce cuál es la prevalencia de esta enfermedad en el Perú, pero a nivel mundial se reporta que el HAE afecta aproximadamente a una de cada 50,000 a 150,000 personas (Roche 2005; Zuraw 2008). TECNOLOGÍA SANITARIA DE INTERÉS: ECALANTIDA La ecalantida (KalbitorTM) es un inhibidor recombinante de la calicreína plasmática humana compuesto por una proteína de 60 aminoácidos que es producida en las células de la levadura Pichia pastoris mediante tecnología de ADN recombinante (Lehmann 2008). Se presenta como una solución isotónica incolora en un vial con una concentración de 10 mg/1 ml de ecalantida (FDA 2014). METODOLOGÍA: La búsqueda de la literatura científica se realizó con el objetivo de identificar evidencia sobre la eficacia y seguridad de ecalantida en el tratamiento de los ataques agudos de HAE. La búsqueda de la evidencia se realizó en las bases de datos bibliográficas: PubMed, Cochrane Library y LILACS. Adicionalmente, se revisó la evidencia generada por grupos internacionales que realizan revisiones sistemáticas (RS), evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC), tales como el National Institute for ealth and Care Excellence (NICE), la Guidelines International Network (G-I-N), el portal de la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC), la Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), el Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (lOWiG), la European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), la European % Medicines Agency (EMA), y el Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). Finalmente, se TA ealizó una búsqueda manual en el portal ClinicalTrials.govdel National Institutes of Health (NIH) para identificar ensayos clínicos en desarrollo o que sus resultados no hayan sido publicados aún. RESULTADOS: De acuerdo con la pregunta PICO, se llevó a cabo una búsqueda de evidencia científica relacionada al uso de la ecalantida como tratamiento de los ataques agudos del HAE. En la presente sinopsis se describe la evidencia disponible según el tipo de publicación, siguiendo lo indicado en los criterios de elegibilidad (GPC, ETS, RS, MA y ECA fase III). Debido al periodo corto de seguimiento de los ensayos clínicos y la naturaleza reincidente de los ataques agudos, se agregó información al respecto, procedente de dos estudios observacionales. CONCLUSIONES: En el presente dictamen, se evaluó la mejor evidencia científica disponible hasta la actualidad en relación con la eficacia y seguridad de ecalantida en el tratamiento de los ataques agudos de HAE. La ecalantida no tiene autorización de uso de Europa. El fabricante retiró su solicitud de aprobación en el 2011, luego que la EMA le solicitara mayor información. En un documento disponible en la página web de la EMA, se afirma que consideraba que el riesgo beneficio no era favorable. La FDA autorizó el uso de ecalantida, pero debido a la tasa de anafilaxia de 5 %, solicitó un estudio con mayor seguimiento (un año) con el objetivo de evaluar mejor el perfil de seguridad. Sin embargo, este estudio no fue completado y así no se cuenta con información recogida de manera sistemática y prospectiva. La tasa de anafilaxia asociada con el uso de ecalantida es alrededor del 4 %. Todos los pacientes fueron manejados exitosamente con epinefrina, corticoides, antihistamínicos y se resolvieron sin secuelas o fatalidades. Los datos provenientes de dos ECA de fase III comparados con placebo mostraron que ecalantida presentó mayores puntuaciones en las herramientas TOS y MSCS en el tratamiento de los ataques agudos de HAE. Un estudio observacional (DX-88/19) reportó similares resultados a los ensayos y no se observó alguna tendencia de disminución del efecto de la ecalantida, según un número creciente de episodios agudos. Comparado con placebo, la ecalantida ha mostrado beneficio en términos de resolución de síntomas, pero su uso está asociado con un riesgo de anafilaxia. No obstante, los ataques agudos de HAE imponen una carga importante en los pacientes con HAE y pueden poner en riesgo la vida del paciente debido al compromiso aérea en algunos casos. No se cuenta con una alternativa terapéutica en el contexto peruano y la literatura ha mostrado que las reacciones de anafilaxia se resolvieron sin dejar secuelas y usando recursos medicamentos accesibles disponibles, sin necesidad de procedimientos invasivos. Por lo expuesto, el ETS! aprueba el uso de ecalantida para el tratamiento de los ataques agudos en pacientes con HAE, según lo establecido en el Anexo N° 1. La vigencia del presente dictamen preliminar es de dos años a partir de la fecha de publicación. La continuación de dicha aprobación está sujeta a la evaluación de los resultados obtenidos y de nueva evidencia que pueda surgir en el tiempo.

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor use and adherence to clinical practice guidelines among women with breast cancer living in Puerto Rico: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Febrile Neutropenia (FN) is a common and serious condition related to cancer chemotherapy. Human recombinant Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) prevents and attenuates the severity and duration of FN. We evaluated the use and predictors of G-CSF adherence among women with breast cancer with a high risk of FN in Puerto Rico. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Puerto Rico Central Cancer Registry-Health Insurance Linkage Database. Women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed during 2009-2015 who received selected chemotherapy regimens (n = 816) were included. The risk of FN was categorized as high and low risk based on the chemotherapy regimens according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and literature. Adherence was defined as the use or no use of G-CSF at the start of the first chemotherapy cycle among women with breast cancer based on the risk of developing FN. We used a multivariate logistic model to identify factors associated with G-CSF use in women classified at high risk for FN. RESULTS: Adherence to G-CSF clinical practice guidelines was low (38.2%) among women with a high risk of FN. Women at high risk of FN with Medicaid (aOR: 0.14; CI 95%: 0.08, 0.24) and Medicare/Medicaid (aOR: 0.33; CI 95%: 0.15, 0.73) were less likely to receive G-CSF than women with private health insurance. Women with regional stage (aOR: 1.82; CI 95%: 1.15, 2.88) were more likely to receive G-CSF than women with localized cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to clinical practice guidelines was poor among women with a high risk of FN. Furthermore, disparities in the adherence to G-CSF use in terms of health insurance, health region, and cancer stage granted the opportunity to implement strategies to follow the recommended guidelines for using G-CSF as part of cancer treatment.

Patterns of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in older Medicare patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high risk (HR: > 20%), or intermediate risk (IR:10-20%) of FN and ≥ 1 patient risk factor (e.g., age ≥ 65y). The current retrospective cohort study describes patterns of PP-G-CSF in older Medicare patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with HR/IR of FN. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 66y initiating chemotherapy regimens with HR/IR of FN to treat breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were selected using Medicare 20% sample (2013-2015) and 100% cancer patient (2014-2017) data. PP-G-CSF use was identified in the first cycle. Timing of pegfilgrastim pre-filled syringe (PFS) administration, proportion of patients completing all cycles (adherence) with pegfilgrastim PFS or on-body injector (OBI), and duration of short-acting G-CSF (sG-CSF) was described across all cycles. RESULTS: Of 64,893 patients receiving HR/IR for FN, 71% received HR and 29% IR regimens. Overall, PP-G-CSF use in the first cycle was 53% (HR: 74%; IR: 44%) and varied across cancers. Adherence with pegfilgrastim was slightly higher among OBI initiators (78%) than PFS (74%). Number of PP-sG-CSF administrations (mean [SD]) per cycle was 5.1 (SD: 2.7) overall, 5.4 (2.6) for HR, and 4.9 (2.7) for IR. CONCLUSION: Despite cancer treatment guidelines recommending PP-G-CSF use to reduce risk of FN associated with HR and IR (with ≥ 1 patient risk-factor) regimens, PP-G-CSF remains underutilized in older patients, across cancer types and regimens. Opportunities exist for improvement in use of PP-G-CSF.

Cost-effectiveness of andexanet alfa versus four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the treatment of oral factor Xa inhibitor-related intracranial hemorrhage in the US.

AIM: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) on the use of andexanet alfa for the treatment of factor Xa inhibitor-related intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) from the US third-party payer and societal perspectives. METHODS: CEA compared andexanet alfa to prothrombin complex concentrate for the treatment of patients receiving factor Xa inhibitors admitted to hospital inpatient care with an ICH. The model comprised two linked phases. Phase 1 utilized a decision tree to model the acute treatment phase (admission of a patient with ICH into intensive care for the first 30 days). Phase 2 modeled long-term costs and outcomes using three linked Markov models comprising the six health states defined by the modified Rankin score. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the strategy of using andexanet alfa for the treatment of factor Xa inhibitor-related ICH is cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life-year gained of $35,872 from a third-party payer perspective and $40,997 from a societal perspective over 20 years. LIMITATIONS: (1) Absence of head-to-head trials comparing therapies included in the economic model, (2) lack of comparative long-term data on treatment efficacy, and (3) bias resulting from the study designs of published literature. CONCLUSION: Given these results, the use of andexanet alfa for the reversal of anticoagulation in patients with factor Xa inhibitor-related ICH may improve quality of life and is likely to be cost-effective in a US context.

A 24-month retrospective update: follow-up hospitalization charges and readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to build upon previously-reported 12-month findings by retrospectively comparing 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges and potentially-relevant readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries that employed either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a nationwide healthcare system database. METHODS: A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2 in the original study, of whom 3,792 patients (23.4%) were identified in the current study with all-cause readmissions during the 24-month follow-up period. Confounding baseline patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics found in the original study were used to adjust multivariate regression models comparing differences in 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges (in 2020 US dollars) and lengths of stay (LOS; in days) between the groups. Differences in potentially-relevant follow-up readmissions were also compared, and all analyses were repeated in the subset of patients who only received treatment at a single level of the spine. RESULTS: The adjusted cumulative mean 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges in the full cohort were significantly lower in the V-CBA group ($99,087) versus the rhBMP-2 group ($124,389; P < 0.0001), and this pattern remained in the single-level cohort (V-CBA = $104,906 vs rhBMP-2 = $125,311; P = 0.0006). There were no differences between groups in adjusted cumulative mean LOS in either cohort. Differences in the rates of follow-up readmissions aligned with baseline comorbidities originally reported for the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were significantly lower for V-CBA patients in the full cohort (10.12% vs 12.00%; P = 0.0002) and similar between groups in the single-level cohort, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes, including bony fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US is associated with substantially lower 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of subsequent lumbar fusion procedures and potentially-relevant readmissions.

Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with pegfilgrastim in docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil therapy for esophageal cancer.

Objective: The efficacy of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy in treating esophageal cancer has been reported. However, febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially serious adverse event of DCF therapy with an incidence of 10 to 40%. Pegfilgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), has been shown to have a primary prophylactic role in FN. However, it has been suggested that excessive use of expensive G-CSF should be avoided. Therefore, we performed a cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree modelling. Methods: We used a decision tree analysis model based on the report of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. Based on a previous study, the FN incidence rate was set at 40.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.9-68.1) for the pegfilgrastim group and 43.5% (95%CI: 21.6-65.4) for the no pegfilgrastim group. The FN treatment cost was US$726.63, and the duration of FN was 3.65±1.20 days. The utility value of patients who received DCF therapy was 0.643, and the change in utility value at FN onset was -0.15. Expected cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated, and cost-utility analysis was performed. Results: The ICER of pegfilgrastim was 184,976.75 USD/QALY. As a result of sensitivity analysis, the utility of FN had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness analysis, followed by the drug cost of pegfilgrastim. Conclusion: Primary prophylaxis of FN with pegfilgrastim might not be cost-effectiveness. In determining whether to administer pegfilgrastim it is necessary to consider patient factors, not just the incidence of FN.

A meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for percutaneous coronary intervention.

This meta-analysis was performed to compare the safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Earlier meta-analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin during PCI demonstrated that bivalirudin caused less bleeding with more stent thrombosis. However, little data were available on the safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for PCI. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety in the "high-risk" patients. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 30, 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding, followed by a cost-minimization analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin using a local drug and medical costs reported in China. Subgroup analysis was based on the type of disease of the high-risk population. Finally, a total of 10 randomized controlled trials involved 42,699 patients were collected. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was employed to appraise the research quality. No significant difference was noted between bivalirudin and heparin regarding all-cause death and MACE. However, subgroup analysis showed that bivalirudin caused less major bleeding in female (OR:0.65, 95% CI:0.53-0.79), diabetes (OR:0.55, 95%CI:0.42-0.73), and CKD (OR:0.59, 95%CI:0.63-1.65). The scatterers of the included literature were approximately symmetrical, and no research was outside the funnel plot. Additionally, cost-minimization analysis showed that heparin was likely to represent a cost-effective option compared with bivalirudin in China, with potential savings of 2129.53 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for one PCI. Overall, the meta-analysis showed that although bivalirudin appeared to have a lower risk of major bleeding rate, the overall effectiveness and safety between the two groups showed no significant difference in high-risk patients for PCI. But the results of the cost-minimization analysis showed that heparin could be a potential cost-saving drug than bivalirudin in patients for PCI in China.