Health economic evaluation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in France.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a specific form of chronic, progressive, fibrosing interstitial pneumonia of unknown cause. To date, there is no specific cure for IPF, and only two treatments (pirfenidone and nintedanib) have marketing authorizations and recommendations in international and French guidelines. OBJECTIVES: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) has been conducted to evaluate the efficiency of nintedanib, in comparison to all available alternatives, in a French setting using the official methodological guidelines. METHODS: A previously developed lifetime Markov model was adapted to the French setting by simulating the progression of IPF patients in terms of lung function decline, incidence of acute exacerbations, and death. Considering the effect of IPF on patients' quality-of-life, a CUA integrating quality adjusted life years (QALY) was chosen as the primary outcome measure in the main analysis. One-way, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of €76,414 (vs €82,665 for pirfenidone). In comparison with all other available options, nintedanib was predicted to provide the most QALY gained (3.34 vs 3.29). This analysis suggests that nintedanib has a 59.0% chance of being more effective than pirfenidone and s 77.3% chance of being cheaper than pirfenidone. Sensitivity analyses showed the results of the CUA to be robust. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this CUA has found that nintedanib appears to be a more cost-effective therapeutic option than pirfenidone in a French setting, due to fewer acute exacerbations and a better tolerability profile.

Health economic changes as a result of implementation of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: national results from DARENCA study 2.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the economic consequences of implementing targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To analyze health care and productivity costs for TT implementation in a national cohort of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Costs were measured per patient per year during a 2-yr follow-up during 2002-2005 (immunotherapy only) and 2006-2009 (TT implementation). All Danish patients with a diagnosis code for RCC and a procedure code for TT or immunotherapy were linked to the Danish National Patient Registry (contains information on all contacts with primary and secondary health sector). Health care and productivity costs were retrieved from the Danish case-mix system and Coherent Social Statistics, respectively. Drug costs were calculated separately from procedure codes and retail prices. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Generalized linear models were used to analyze costs adjusted for age, gender, and civil status. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 439 patients were included for 2006-2009 and 192 for 2002-2005. Comparison of the health care cost per patient per year between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 revealed lower inpatient costs (€11 899 vs €19 944, adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.64), higher outpatient costs (€14 308 vs €6209, RR 2.39), lower radiotherapy costs (€194 vs €633, RR 0.31), higher radiology costs (€676 vs €191, RR 3.73), and higher separately calculated drug costs (€12 040 vs €3103, RR 3.82, all p<0.001) for the former. Total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ (€27 676 vs €27 856, RR 1.05, p=0.5) between the two periods. Income from employment did not significantly differ between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 (RR 1.11, p=0.11) and costs associated with loss of productivity were €7852 and €8265, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A different pattern of health care costs were observed but total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ after implementation of TT for patients with mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this nationwide study, we found changes in the pattern of health care costs for patients with metastatic kidney cancer after implementation of targeted therapy compared to an immunotherapy control period; however, total health care costs and income from employment were without significant changes.

Analysis of synthetic cannabinoids in "spice-like" herbal highs: snapshot of the German market in summer 2011.

In this study, seven commercial "spice-like" products available on the German market were analyzed. They all contained significant amounts of synthetic cannabinoids and had distinctly different compositions of these adulterants. All synthetic cannabinoids were extracted and purified by different chromatographic techniques from the respective product. The structures of all compounds were elucidated by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and further characterized by mass spectrometry (MS) and ultraviolet and infrared spectroscopy to generate a full data set of each compound. Altogether, eight compounds were identified, and one deuterium-labeled cannabinoid was used as internal standard. Four products contained only one individual compound, while three products contained mixtures of two compounds. Among the eight isolated compounds, six were already known from recent publications (JWH-081, JWH-210, JWH-122, AM2201, RCS-4, and JWH-203), but the published data were not always complete. In addition, two unknown compounds (AM2201-pMe, RCS-4-(N-Me)) were isolated. Overall, compounds from three distinct classes of synthetic cannabinoids could be identified, characterized, and compared. The MS data of the different subclasses allowed the postulation of some general key fragmentations to distinguish between these subclasses. In addition, we established a general method using an isotopically labeled internal standard (JWH-018-D(3)) to quantify synthetic cannabinoids in herbal mixtures. The total content of the synthetic cannabinoids ranged from 77.5 to 202 mg/g, while individual compounds were detected from 19.3 to 202 mg/g in these products. The spectroscopic data for all compounds mentioned here were collected and added en bloc as Electronic supplementary material to this manuscript.

Costs associated with angiogenesis inhibitor therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in clinical practice: results from a medical chart review study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs for treatment of mRCC patients receiving angiogenesis inhibitors (AI) using resource utilization data from medical charts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed in two U.S. tertiary oncology centers. Non-trial mRCC patients treated from 04/2003 to 06/2008, ≥ 18 years old, and with ≥ 1 prescription for sunitinib (SU; n = 57), sorafenib (SOR; n = 62), or ≥ 1 intravenous (i.v.) administration bevacizumab (BEV; n = 25) as first AI were included. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs ($2008) were estimated for drug, i.v. administration, office visits, procedures, and AE treatments. AI drug costs were estimated by applying Average Wholesale Price to treatment course. Office visit and procedure costs were based on private insurance reimbursement. Hospitalization costs were based on HCUP National Inpatient Sample charges for AEs and were converted to costs. ER visit cost was based on national average from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. RESULTS: Median treatment duration (mo) was 10.5 (SU), 8.1 (SOR), 7.9 (BEV). Average daily oral dosage was 32 mg (SU), 690 mg (SOR); average dose per i.v. administration was 871 mg (BEV). Total PPPM costs were $7,945 (SU), $6,990 (SOR), $15,189 (BEV). AI drugs accounted for the majority of PPPM costs ($5,639 [SU], $5,214 [SOR], $13,664 [BEV]), followed by procedures ($1,420 [SU], $1,004 [SOR], $749 [BEV]), and AE treatments ($729 [SU], $636 [SOR], $291 [BEV]). CONCLUSIONS: BEV patients incurred about twice the cost of SU patients and more than twice the cost of SOR patients, mainly due to higher drug and i.v. administration costs. Patients who received SU incurred the highest cost for AE management.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Spain.

INTRODUCTION Sunitinib, an oral, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, delays disease progression, with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years, improves quality of life and is becoming the first-line standard of care for metastatic renal carcinoma (mRCC). PURPOSE To assess the economic value of sunitinib as fi rst-line therapy in mRCC within the Spanish healthcare system. METHODS An adapted Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of sunitinib vs. sorafenib (SFN) and bevacizumab/interferon-α (BEV/IFN) as first-line mRCC therapy from the Spanish third-party payer perspective. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS data from sunitinib, SFN and BEV/IFN pivotal trials were extrapolated to project survival and costs in 6-week cycles. Results, in progression-free life-years (PFLY), life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with costs and benefits discounted annually at 3%, were obtained using deterministic and probabilistic analyses. RESULTS Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than both SFN (gains of 0.52 PFLY, 0.16 LY, 0.17 QALY) and BEV/IFN (gains of 0.19 PFLY, 0.23 LY, 0.16 QALY) with average cost savings/patients of €1,124 and €23,218, respectively. Using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €50,000/QALY, sunitinib achieved an incremental net benefit (INB) of €9,717 and €31,211 compared with SFN and BEV/IFN, respectively. At this WTP, the probability of sunitinib providing the highest INB was 75%. CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that sunitinib is a costeffective alternative to other targeted therapies as first-line mRCC therapy in the Spanish healthcare setting.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma accounts for 2-3% of all adult malignancies worldwide, and around 30% of patients with the condition present with advanced or metastatic disease.1,2 Until recently, cytokine therapy (e.g. interleukin-2 or interferon-alfa) was the standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma but provided only a small survival advantage (e.g. extending life by a median of 2.5 months).3 A key development has been the introduction of drugs known as receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which include ▾sunitinib (Sutent-Pfizer), ▾sorafenib (Nexavar-Bayer) and ▾pazopanib (Votrient-GlaxoSmithKline). Here we review the evidence on the efficacy, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of these treatments in renal cell carcinoma.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis of sertindole in the treatment of schizophrenia in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia; variability in their tolerability represents the discerning factor in treatment choices. Sertindole has a relatively good tolerability profile that favours long-term patient adherence and, therefore, is associated with lower rates of relapse and rehospitalization. AIM: A model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 5-year treatment strategy starting with sertindole versus olanzapine, risperidone, aripiprazole or the typical antipsychotic agent, haloperidol. METHODS: The model was based on published trials and local clinical practice, and considered costs from the perspective of the Swedish National Health Insurance Board. RESULTS: All atypical agents were clinically superior and more cost-effective than haloperidol with a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of approximately 490,000 Swedish kroner. Sertindole was associated with the lowest direct and indirect medical costs, driven by its tolerability profile. CONCLUSIONS: Sertindole represents a useful alternative to the current treatment options available in Sweden. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The relatively good tolerability profile of sertindole translates into lower costs of schizophrenia management, primarily driven by substantially lower direct and indirect costs. Sertindole appears to be a clinically and cost-effective alternative in the management of patients with schizophrenia in Sweden.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data. METHODS: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden. CONCLUSION: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

Sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus or bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a review of health economic evaluations.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most prevalent kidney cancer and the 5-year overall survival figure in metastatic disease (mRCC) is about 10%. New targeted drugs (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus) have shown activity in the treatment of mRCC, but they are all associated with a significant burden of cost. To support decision makers in their allocation of resources, costeffectiveness models are constructed to compare the costs and outcomes of anticancer therapy. This survey focuses on studies since 2003 exploring health economics in the treatment of metastatic and/or advanced RCC employing these new drugs. This paper summarizes the results, focuses on the level of evidence of these studies, compares the calculated cost-effectiveness ratios and makes suggestions for future studies. This review reveals costs per life years gained (LYG) or quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in the range of euro 22,648 to euro203,692, depending on whether the setting is first-line or second-line and drug used. When compared to the other agents, sunitinib has the best cost-effectiveness figure. Second-line therapy does not offer valid incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

[Economic evaluation of targeted biologic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma]. / Analýza nákladu na cílenou biologickou lécbu pacientu s metastatickým karcinomem ledviny.

BACKGROUND: Targeted biologic therapy has been proven to be effective compared to the current therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in clinical studies as well as in actual clinical practice, but its high cost is a potentially limiting factor. Since the local cost-effectiveness analysis is missing, we assessed the cost of sunitinib and sorafenib in the treatment of mRCC in a comprehensive cancer centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients were treated with sunitinib and/or sorafenib between 06/2006 and 09/2009 and then followed for at least 12 months. Clinical (disease progression, adverse events, dose reduction) and cost data (medication, examination, hospitalization) were assessed in the comprehensive cancer centre (1 Euro = 25.78 CZK). RESULTS: The multikinase inhibitors were the second line treatment for most patients after INF-alpha therapy failure (86.7%). The mean cost per month to progression (PD) was 94,141.8 CZK/3651.7 Euro (sunitinib: 11 months to PD, cost to PD 1,267,648.5 CZK/49,171.8 Euro; sorafenib: 8 months to PD, cost to PD 896,670.1 CZK / 34,781.6 Euro). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 123,659.5 CZK / 4796.7 Euro per progression-free month in sunitinib vs sorafenib patients. The mean cost per month after PD was 45,767.0 CZK/1775.3 Euro with sequential therapy (sorafenib after sunitinib failure and vice-versa in more than half of patients) or best supportive care. 16 patients died during the study period with mean cost of 1,180,795.4CZK/45,802.8 Euro per 12 months (median between treatment initiation with sunitinib or sorafenib and death). 8 patients (26%) did not achieve progression (median progression-free survival to 09/2009: sunitinib 18 months, sorafenib 14 months). CONCLUSION: The cost of medication made up more than 95% of total costs to PD and more than 90% after PD. The cost per progression-free month was 123,659.5 CZK/4796.7 Euro in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib vs sorafenib.

Do the results of the new trials change the standard treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer?

With the emergence of novel angiogenesis inhibitors, we are moving to a new era for patients with metastasized renal cell carcinoma. Since the results achieved reflect more a modification of the natural course of the disease than a cure, past achievements should not be neglected. Low-risk patients with clear cell histology, especially those with pulmonary metastasis only, should still be offered cytokine therapy. For intermediate-risk patients sunitinib is the treatment of choice. For high-risk patients, temsirolimus has to date provided the most convincing data, its availability is however limited. Data with sorafenib and sunitinib in the high-risk group are still anecdotal. The toxicity profiles of these 2 drugs are different and might particularly relate to patients with known cardiovascular co-morbidity. No sufficient data are available regarding sequential use. After cytokine failure, sorafinib is the treatment of choice. Patients should preferably be treated within clinical trials to answer unaddressed questions. It is well known that the strict entry criteria used within the clinical studies were applied very flexibly when drugs have been approved. These aspects require a careful follow-up to ascertain optimal use and to prevent misuse. Finally, the costs of prolonged treatment will be enormous, and only meaningful survival advantages will convince the health authorities to make these new treatments available for all patients.

The cost of reaching National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals in hypercholesterolaemic patients. A comparison of atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin.

OBJECTIVE: Recognising the importance of treating hyperlipidaemia, the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) has established widely accepted treatment goals for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Medications used most commonly to achieve these LDL-C goals are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The relative resource utilisation and cost associated with the use of reductase inhibitors of different LDL-C lowering efficacy are unknown, but are major health and economic concerns. The objective of this study was to determine the mean total cost of care to reach NCEP goals with various reductase inhibitors. DESIGN: In a randomised, 54-week, 30-centre controlled trial we compared resources used and costs associated with treating patients to achieve NCEP goals using 4 reductase inhibitors: atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: The trial studied 662 patients; 318 had known atherosclerotic disease. INTERVENTIONS: Reductase inhibitor therapy was initiated at recommended starting doses and increased according to NCEP guidelines and package insert information. For patients who did not reach the goal at the highest recommended dose of each reductase inhibitor, the resin colestipol was added. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Patients treated with atorvastatin, compared-with other reductase inhibitors, were more likely to reach NCEP goals during treatment (p < 0.05), required fewer office visits (p < 0.001) and less adjuvant colestipol therapy (p = 0.001). Consequently, the mean total cost of care (1996 values) to reach NCEP goals was lower with atorvastatin [$US1064; 95% confidence interval (CI): $US953 to $US1176] compared with simvastatin ($US1471, 95% CI: $US1304 to $US1648), lovastatin ($US1972; 95% CI: $US1758 to $US2186) and fluvastatin ($US1542; 95% CI: $US1384 to $US1710). Results were similar for patients with or without known atherosclerotic disease. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring drug therapy for hypercholesterolaemia, NCEP LDL-C goals are achieved significantly more often using fewer resources with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin, lovastatin or fluvastatin.