A systematic review and meta-analysis of maintenance treatment for psychotic depression.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review on the use of maintenance treatment to prevent relapse and recurrence in patients with psychotic unipolar or bipolar depression. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search in December 2019 (and an updated search in July 2021) of four databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane) to identify controlled studies comparing the relapse rates of patients receiving maintenance treatment for psychotic unipolar depression and psychotic bipolar depression. A meta-analysis was made that included three studies comparing antidepressant (AD) and antipsychotic (AP) combination therapy with AD monotherapy. We used the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included five randomized controlled trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria, making three comparisons: (a) AD + AP versus AD monotherapy; (b) AD + AP versus AP monotherapy; (c) AD + electroconvulsive therapy versus AD monotherapy. The included studies only examined patients with psychotic unipolar depression. The largest included study reported a statistically significant advantage of AD + AP compared with AD monotherapy. We made a meta-analysis of the three studies comparing AD + AP combination therapy with AD monotherapy, which included 195 patients and 56 events. The meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the finding of the largest study, we did not find a statistically significant difference between AD + AP combination therapy and AD monotherapy in the meta-analysis. There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of any treatment modality as maintenance treatment for psychotic depression. Further studies are required.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada and Sweden: an update with 5-year data.

AIMS: Nivolumab has been approved for advanced squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following platinum-based chemotherapy in both Canada and Sweden. We aimed to determine the value-for-money of nivolumab versus docetaxel in a Canadian and Swedish setting based on 5-year data. METHODS: These cost effectiveness analyses used partitioned survival models with three mutually exclusive health states: progression-free, progressed disease, and death. All clinical parameters were derived from two registration phase 3 randomized trials, CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057, with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Treatment duration was based on time-on-treatment data from the clinical trials. Costs were derived from published sources. The primary outcomes of the analyses were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The model input parameters for each analysis were chosen in line with guidance from the respective HTA authorities. RESULTS: From a Canadian payer perspective, the ICERs were CAN$140,753 per QALY in the squamous population, and CAN$173,804 per QALY in the non-squamous population, assuming a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that changes to the discount rates for outcomes had the highest impact on the ICERs. In the Swedish analysis, the ICERs were SEK568,895 per QALY in the squamous population and SEK662,991 per QALY in the non-squamous population, assuming a 15-year time horizon, a 3% discount rate, and a 2-year maximum treatment duration for nivolumab. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICERs were most sensitive to changes in the discount rate for outcomes. CONCLUSION: These updated analyses, based on more mature trial data with a minimum follow-up of 5 years, generate more favorable ICERs versus the previously submitted HTA assessments that resulted in approval of nivolumab for patients with previously treated NSCLC in Canada and Sweden.

Cost identification of Nordic FLIRI, Nordic FLOX, XELIRI and XELOX in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in Sweden -- a clinical practice model approach.

INTRODUCTION: The role of health-related economy is crucial due to the finite healthcare resources. Intravenous (i.v.) regimes Nordic FLOX and Nordic FLIRI, and the partly oral alternatives XELIRI and XELOX are four commonly used chemotherapies in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Scandinavian countries, all with different costs. AIM: To describe and compare costs associated with four commonly used treatments for advanced CRC in clinical routine practice. An additional aim was to evaluate the theoretical cost impact of adverse effects associated with the therapies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective study was carried out using observations and a clinical quality database of CRC patients treated with Nordic FLOX, Nordic FLIRI, XELIRI and XELOX as first line at an oncology clinic in Gothenburg, Sweden. The treatments are used in parallel in clinical practice. All patients treated from 2003 to 2009 were included. The clinical outcome of the therapies was equivalent; mean treatment time was 5.9-7.7 months. A clinical economic evaluation model was designed. All direct costs associated with the baseline treatment, administration of chemotherapy and drug costs were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: The maximum cost for the four treatments was estimated to be 72 000-75 000 SEK per patient for six months, of this approximately 8000 SEK was linked to treatment of toxicity. During six months the i.v. treatments could include 17 more outpatient visits per patient compared to the oral alternatives. During treatment at the clinic around 20% of the patients were hospitalised (XELOX excluded, because of few included patients). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the four regimens are similar in terms of treatment costs. Different costs affect the total cost. The oral alternative makes it possible to treat additional patients with the same labour force resources. Treatment of adverse effects contributes to extensive resource use at the hospital.