Budget Impact of Introducing Fixed-Duration Mosunetuzumab for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the budget impact of introducing fixed-duration mosunetuzumab as a treatment option for adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior systemic therapies and to estimate the total cumulative costs per patient in the USA. METHODS: A 3-year budget impact model was developed for a hypothetical 1-million-member cohort enrolled in a mixed commercial/Medicare health plan. Comparators were: axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, tazemetostat, rituximab plus lenalidomide, copanlisib, and older therapies (rituximab or obinutuzumab ± chemotherapy). Costs per patient comprised treatment-associated costs including the drug, its administration, adverse events, and routine care. Dosing and safety data were ascertained from respective package inserts and clinical trial data. Drug costs (March 2023) were estimated based on the average wholesale acquisition cost reported in AnalySource®, and all other costs were based on published sources and inflated to 2022 US dollars. Market shares were obtained from Genentech internal projections and expert opinion. Budget impact outcomes were presented on a per-member per-month basis. RESULTS: Compared with a scenario without mosunetuzumab, its introduction over 3 years resulted in a budget increase of $69,812 (1% increase) and an average per-member per-month budget impact of $0.0019. Among the newer therapies, mosunetuzumab had the second-lowest cumulative per patient cost (mosunetuzumab = $202,039; axicabtagene ciloleucel = $505,845; tisagenlecleucel = $476,293; rituximab plus lenalidomide = $263,520; tazemetostat = $250,665; copanlisib = $127,293) and drug costs, and its introduction only increased total drug costs by 0.1%. By year 3, the cumulative difference in the per patient cost with mosunetuzumab was -$303,805 versus axicabtagene ciloleucel, -$274,254 versus tisagenlecleucel, -$61,481 versus rituximab plus lenalidomide, -$48,625 versus tazemetostat, and $74,747 versus copanlisib. Older therapies were less costly with 3-year cumulative costs that ranged from $36,512 to $147,885. CONCLUSIONS: Over 3 years, the estimated cumulative per patient cost of mosunetuzumab is lower than most available newer therapies, resulting in a small increase in the budget after its formulary adoption for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

Economic evaluation of toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Background and objective: The CHOICE-01 trial showed that toripalimab plus chemotherapy achieved satisfactory outcomes compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were negative for driver genes, but the economics of this regimen is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the costs and outcomes associated with adding toripalimab to first-line chemotherapy. The clinical data in the model came from the CHOICE-01 trial, only direct medical costs were included, and utility values were referred to the literature. Four models were applied to explore the differences in the results of fitting and extrapolating K-M curves from different models, and cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis was performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the main outcome measure. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The baseline analysis showed that toripalimab coupled with chemotherapy cost $21,052 more than chemotherapy ($43,197 vs. $22,145) and also gained 0.71 QALYs more (1.75 QALYs vs. 1.03 QALYs), with an ICER of $29,478/QALYs. At the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($35,108/QALY), the extra cost was well worth it. The results of fitting and extrapolating the survival curves using other models were consistent with the results of the standard parametric model. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy was economical. Sensitivity analysis showed that the utility values of PD and PFS stages had the greatest impact on the model. Conclusion: From the viewpoint of the Chinese healthcare system, toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy.

Cost-minimization analysis of recombinant factor VIII Fc versus emicizumab for treating patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors in Europe.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A cost-minimization model was developed to compare recombinant factor VIII Fc (rFVIIIFc) and emicizumab as prophylaxis for hemophilia A without inhibitors. METHODS: The model was based on 100 patients from the healthcare payer perspective in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany (5-year time horizon). Costs included: drug acquisition; emicizumab wastage by bodyweight (manufacturer's dosing recommendations); and additional FVIII for breakthrough bleeds. Scenario analyses (UK only): reduced emicizumab dosing frequency; and emicizumab maximum wastage. RESULTS: Total incremental 5-year savings for rFVIIIFc rather than emicizumab use range from €89,320,131 to €149,990,408 in adolescents/adults (≥12 years) and €173,417,486 to €253,240,465 in children (<12 years). Emicizumab wastage accounts for 6% of its total cost in adolescents/adults and 26% in children. Reducing the emicizumab dosing frequency reduces the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc, but these remain substantial (adolescents/adults, >€92 million; children >€32 million). Maximum emicizumab wastage increases by 86% and 106%, respectively, increasing the incremental cost savings with rFVIIIFc to €125,352,125 and €105,872,727, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on cost-minimization modeling, rFVIIIFc use for hemophilia A prophylaxis in patients without inhibitors is associated with substantial cost savings in Europe, reflecting not only higher acquisition costs of emicizumab, but also other costs including wastage related to available vial sizes.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Belimumab and Voclosporin for Patients with Lupus Nephritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite existing therapies, people with lupus nephritis progress to kidney failure and have reduced life expectancy. Belimumab and voclosporin are two new disease-modifying therapies recently approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, including the following health states: "complete response," "partial response," and "active disease" defined by eGFR and proteinuria changes, kidney failure, and death. Short-term data and mean cohort characteristics were sourced from pivotal clinical trials of belimumab (the Belimumab International Study in Lupus Nephritis) and voclosporin (the Aurinia Urinary Protection Reduction Active-Lupus with Voclosporin trial and Aurinia Renal Response in Active Lupus With Voclosporin). Risk of mortality and kidney failure were on the basis of survival modeling using published Kaplan-Meier data. Each drug was compared with the standard of care as represented by the comparator arm in its respective pivotal trial(s) using US health care sector perspective, with a societal perspective also explored. RESULTS: In the health care perspective probabilistic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab compared with its control arm was estimated to be approximately $95,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The corresponding incremental ratio for voclosporin compared with its control arm was approximately $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Compared with their respective standard care arms, the probabilities of belimumab and voclosporin being cost effective at a threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year were 69% and 49%, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival in response states, costs and utilities in active disease, and the utilities in response states. In the analysis from a societal perspective, the incremental ratio for belimumab was estimated to be approximately $66,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental ratio for voclosporin was estimated to be approximately $133,000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with their respective standard care arms, belimumab but not voclosporin met willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Despite potential clinical superiority in the informing trials, there remains high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

[Administrative delays of temporary recommendation for use: Impact on access to innovation in melanoma]. / Délais administratifs des RTU, effet sur l'accès à l'innovation dans le mélanome.

INTRODUCTION: Melanoma has benefited in recent years from therapeutic innovations, which have improved overall survival of patients. France has developed a regulatory arsenal allowing faster access to innovative drugs before marketing authorization: temporary authorization for use (ATU) and temporary recommendation for use (RTU). METHOD: We describe here the decision-making processes that led to the non-publication of the decree on the funding of three RTU in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, and we analyse the fate of these drugs in order to quantify the potential loss of chance. RESULTS: On 03AUG2018, the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Product Safety (ANSM) published 3 RTU in order to give rapid access to major innovations in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. These drugs have respectively demonstrated reductions in the risk of recurrence by 35 %, 43% and 55% for target populations of 2200, 1900 and 650 patients per year. Despite a favourable opinion on reimbursement from the French National Authority for Health (HAS), the decrees on reimbursement will never be published, prohibiting the use of these products before the marketing authorisation, and depriving many patients of a potential cure. CONCLUSION: Despite a favourable opinion from scientists and health agencies for the rapid availability of a drug, the French public health code does not systematically imply access to a therapeutic innovation. The reform of access to innovation implemented on 01JUL2021 may help tackle this issue.

The burden of illness in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria receiving treatment with the C5-inhibitors eculizumab or ravulizumab: results from a US patient survey.

Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare and life-threatening disease with symptoms of hemolysis and thrombosis. Current therapies for this complement-mediated disease rely predominantly on inhibition of the C5 complement protein. However, data on treatment responses and quality of life in C5-inhibitor (C5i)-treated PNH patients are scarce. The objective of this study was to determine C5i treatment effects on clinical parameters, PNH symptoms, quality of life, and resource use for PNH patients. This cross-sectional study surveyed 122 individuals in the USA receiving treatment for PNH with C5-targeted monoclonal antibodies, eculizumab (ECU) or ravulizumab (RAV). Despite most patients receiving C5i therapy for ≥ 3 months (ECU 100%, n = 35; RAV 95.4%, n = 83), many patients remained anemic with hemoglobin levels ≤ 12 g/dL in 87.5% (n = 28/32) and 82.9% (n = 68/82) of ECU and RAV recipients, respectively. A majority of patients on ECU (88.6%; n = 31/35) and RAV (74.7%; n = 65/87) reported fatigue symptoms. Among PNH patients receiving C5i therapy for ≥ 12 months, some still reported thrombotic events (ECU, 10.0%, n = 1/10; RAV, 23.5%, n = 4/17) and required transfusions within the past year (ECU, 52.2%, n = 12/23; RAV, 22.6%, n = 7/31). Other patient-reported PNH symptoms included breakthrough hemolysis, shortness of breath, and headaches. Patients reported scores below the average population norms on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scales. Overall, this study found that PNH patients receiving ECU or RAV therapy demonstrated a significant burden of illness, highlighting the need for improved PNH therapies.

Quantifying the economic effects of ravulizumab versus eculizumab treatment in patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome.

AIMS: This study compared the aggregate duration of treatment administration of approved eculizumab and ravulizumab treatment regimens and resultant productivity implications for patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) and their caregivers. METHODS: The aggregate duration of treatment administration (which includes waiting time for medication preparation and time for infusion, recovery, and travel to and from the clinic) was determined for a hypothetical population of patients with aHUS treated with eculizumab (10 mg/mL) or ravulizumab (10 or 100 mg/mL), in the clinic or at home, for 1 year, in Germany, Italy, the UK, and the US. The data for US patients treated in the clinic was used to extend a previously published cost-minimization model (CMM) to estimate the annual lost productivity associated with treatment administration and to compare the overall annual treatment costs for hypothetical adult and pediatric patients in the US. RESULTS: The aggregate duration of treatment administration associated with ravulizumab 10 mg/mL and 100 mg/mL was reduced by 44-52% and 69-74%, respectively, compared with eculizumab 10 mg/mL, across all four countries. Using the CMM, the adult and pediatric US patient lost productivity costs due to treatment were reduced by 56-60% and 73-76% with ravulizumab 10 mg/mL and 100 mg/mL, respectively, compared with eculizumab 10 mg/mL, and overall discounted annual treatment costs (direct and lost productivity costs owing to treatment) were reduced for ravulizumab (10 mg/mL and 100 mg/mL) vs eculizumab 10 mg/mL for adult and pediatric patients. LIMITATIONS: This study was based on hypothetical patients, and assumptions were made regarding caregiver involvement, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with eculizumab, ravulizumab reduces the lost productivity costs associated with treatment. This reduction in costs is greater with the ravulizumab 100 mg/mL formulation, compared with ravulizumab 10 mg/mL, owing to shorter infusion times with this more concentrated formulation.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY[Figure: see text][Figure: see text].

Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%. METHODS: A 30-year "partitioned survival" model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the "preprogression" (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and "postprogression" (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI -0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

The effectiveness and value of eculizumab and efgartigimod for generalized myasthenia gravis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Nikitin, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Tice, Touchette, and Lien received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for treatment of US patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness from the United States (US) healthcare payers perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model over a 30-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus placebo based on clinical data from the KEYNOTE-826 phase 3 randomized trial. Costs and health state utilities were obtained from literature and publicly available databases. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: For the Intention-to-Treat patients, pembrolizumab was associated with an additional 0.74 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of $182,271 when compared with placebo. The ICER was $247,663/QALY. For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥ 1 and 10, the ICER was $253,322/QALY and $214,212/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that pembrolizumab had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of pembrolizumab being cost-effective was zero at the current willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. The price of pembrolizumab had to reduce at least to $28.336 (55.8% of the current price) for it to be cost-effective in a 50% of chance. CONCLUSION: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is costly and might not be cost-effective for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer at the current price in the US.

Cost-utility analysis of dupilumab add on therapy versus standard therapy in adolescents and adults for severe asthma in Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab is a recombinant human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. This drug raises concerns about the economic impact in scenarios with constrained resources. This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of dupilumab plus standard care (SoC) vs SoC alone in adolescents and adults with severe asthma and eosinophilic phenotype. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with dupilumab, were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) value of $19,000. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed dupilumab was associated with higher annual annual per-patient costs (US$5,719 for dupilumab and US$1,214 for standard therapy) and higher QALYs than standard therapy (fe  4.06 QALYs vs 3.97 QALYs, respectively). . The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimated was US$50,160 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab is not cost-effective using a WTP of US$19000 per QALY threshold in Colombia. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus etoposide: platinum in the first-line therapy of extensive stage small-cell lung cancer from the Chinese payers' perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Results from the CASPIAN trial (Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab in Combination With Platinum Based Chemotherapy in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer) trial demonstrated the clinical benefit of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (EP) chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, considering the high price of durvalumab, it is unclear whether addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy has economic value compared with EP alone. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: A Markov model comprising three health states (stable, progressive, and dead) was developed to simulate the process of small-cell lung cancer. Utility and costs were obtained from published resources. Health outcomes were derived from the CASPIAN trial. Costs were calculated based on the standard medical fees in Zhejiang Province from Chinese patients' perspective. Utility values were obtained from published data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to verify model robustness. RESULTS: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy costs more than $32,220, with a gain of 0.14 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with EP alone. The incremental cost-effective ratio was $230,142.9 per QALY, which exceeds the willingness to pay threshold of $28,527 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the utility values for the progressive state, costs of durvalumab and EP chemotherapy, and costs for the progressive state were considered to be the three most sensitive factors in the model. CONCLUSION: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy is not a cost-effective strategy in the first-line therapy of ES-SCLC from the Chinese payers' perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Evolocumab Therapy in Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events in the Context of the Brazilian Unified Health System. / Análise de Custo-Efetividade da Terapia com Evolocumabe em Pacientes com Alto Risco de Eventos Cardiovasculares no Contexto do SUS ­ Brasil.

BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) secondary to systemic hypertension (HTN) may be associated with left atrial (LA) functional abnormalities. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize LA mechanics in HCM and HTN and determine any correlation with the extent of left ventricular (LV) fibrosis measured by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in HCM patients. METHODS: Two-dimensional speckle tracking-derived longitudinal LA function was acquired from apical views in 60 HCM patients, 60 HTN patients, and 34 age-matched controls. HCM patients also underwent CMR, with measurement of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) extension. Association with LA strain parameters was analyzed. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Mean LV ejection fraction was not different between the groups. The E/e' ratio was impaired in the HCM group and preserved in the control group. LA mechanics was significantly reduced in HCM, compared to the HTN group. LA strain rate in reservoir (LASRr) and in contractile (LASRct) phases were the best discriminators of HCM, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8, followed by LA strain in reservoir phase (LASr) (AUC 0.76). LASRr and LASR-ct had high specificity (89% and 91%, respectively) and LASr had sensitivity of 80%. A decrease in 2.79% of LA strain rate in conduit phase (LASRcd) predicted an increase of 1cm in LGE extension (r2=0.42, ß 2.79, p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: LASRr and LASRct were the best discriminators for LVH secondary to HCM. LASRcd predicted the degree of LV fibrosis assessed by CMR. These findings suggest that LA mechanics is a potential predictor of disease severity in HCM.

FUNDAMENTO: Em associação às estatinas, os inibidores da pró-proteína convertase subtilisina/kexina tipo 9 (PCSK9) demonstraram ser eficazes na redução de eventos cardiovasculares em pacientes de alto risco. OBJETIVO: Analisar a custo-efetividade da implementação de evolocumabe para pacientes com alto risco de eventos cardiovasculares no contexto do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um modelo de Markov foi utilizado, baseando-se em uma amostra ambulatorial de pacientes com doença arterial coronariana. Os desfechos primários analisados foram infarto agudo do miocárdio, acidente vascular cerebral isquêmico (AVCi), revascularização do miocárdio e morte cardiovascular. O resultado foi expresso por meio da razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI), considerando-se uma taxa de desconto de 5% ao ano, e uma análise de sensibilidade foi realizada, tendo em vista a imprecisão de valores. RESULTADOS: Selecionaram-se 61 pacientes com risco cardiovascular estimado em 35% em 10 anos, se em uso de atorvastatina 80mg/dia, e em 22,75%, se adicionado o evolocumabe. O custo global por paciente no período de 10 anos foi de R$ 46.522,44 no grupo em monoterapia com atorvastatina versus R$ 236.141,85 na terapia combinada, com uma efetividade global de 0,54 e 0,73, respectivamente. Isso resultou em uma RCEI R$ 1.011.188,07 (R$ 864.498,95 a R$ 1.296.748,43) por desfecho cardiovascular evitado. CONCLUSÕES: Apesar de não existirem padrões nacionais para custo-efetividade, os dados encontrados sugerem que a estratégia de associação do evolocumabe à terapia com estatina não é, no momento, custo-efetiva.