The Pharmacological Costs of Second-Line Treatments for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In ovarian cancer, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrence; therefore, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the drugs administered and the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS and OS. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in Euros (&OV0556;). We have subsequently applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. RESULTS: Our study evaluated 3 phase 3 randomized controlled trials, including 2004 patients. The most relevant increase of costs was associated with the combination chemotherapy including trabectedin, with the highest costs for month of PFS gained (15,836 &OV0556;) and for month of OS gained (7198 &OV0556;), but it substantially differs considering the data of partially platinum-sensitive populations (platinum-free interval of 6-12 months), with 3959 &OV0556; for month of OS gained. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer can lead to an increase of pharmacological costs. Differently, considering OS in patients with platinum-free interval of 6 to 12 months, there is a halving of pharmacological costs with the addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. These costs are in line with the spending suggested as sustainable (thresholds of <$61,500 per life-year gained).

Polymer-based drug-eluting stent treatment extends the time to reintervention for patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal artery disease: clinical evidence and potential economic value.

Aim: Use long-term follow-up data from the IMPERIAL study to determine whether drug-eluting polymer-based nitinol stent treatment can delay the time to repeat intervention for femoropopliteal artery disease and how such a delay may result in cost savings in a value-based episode of care. Patients & methods: The IMPERIAL randomized controlled trial was an international study of a paclitaxel-eluting polymer-coated stent (Eluvia, Boston Scientific, MA, USA) versus a polymer-free paclitaxel-coated stent (Zilver PTX, Cook Corporation, IN, USA) for treating lesions of the femoropopliteal arterial segment. Study patients (n = 465) had symptomatic lower limb ischemia. Safety and efficacy assessments were performed through 5 years. Mean time to first reintervention was calculated in post-hoc analysis for patients who underwent a clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) through 3 or 5 years following the index procedure. To simulate potential cost savings associated with differential CD-TLR burden over time, a cost-avoidance analysis using input parameters from IMPERIAL and US 100% Medicare standard analytical files was developed. Results: Among patients with a first CD-TLR through 3 years of follow-up, mean time to reintervention was 5.5 months longer (difference 166 days, 95% CI: 51, 282 days; p = 0.0058) for patients treated with Eluvia (n = 56) than for those treated with Zilver PTX (n = 30). Through the 5-year study follow-up period, CD-TLR rates were 29.3% (68/232) for Eluvia and 34.2% (39/114) for Zilver PTX (p = 0.3540) and mean time to first reintervention exceeded 2 years for patients treated with Eluvia at 737 days versus 645 days for the Zilver PTX group (difference 92 days, 95% CI: -85, 269 days; p = 0.3099). Simulated savings considering reinterventions occurring over 1 and 5 years following initial use of Eluvia over Zilver PTX were US $1,395,635 and US $1,531,795, respectively, when IMPERIAL CD-TLR rates were extrapolated to 1000 patients. Conclusion: IMPERIAL data suggest initial treatment with Eluvia extends the time patients spend without undergoing reintervention. This extension may be associated with cost savings in relevant time frames.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel-coated balloons for endovascular therapy of femoropopliteal arterial obstructions.

PURPOSE: To explore the cost-effectiveness of using drug-eluting balloon (DEB) angioplasty for the treatment of femoropopliteal arterial lesions, which has been shown to significantly lower the rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared with standard balloon angioplasty (BA). METHODS: A simplified decision-analytic model based on TLR rates reported in the literature was applied to baseline and follow-up costs associated with in-hospital patient treatment during 1 year of follow-up. Costs were expressed in Swiss Francs (sFr) and calculated per 100 patients treated. Budgets were analyzed in the context of current SwissDRG reimbursement figures and calculated from two different perspectives: a general budget on total treatment costs (third-party healthcare payer) as well as a budget focusing on the physician/facility provider perspective. RESULTS: After 1 year, use of DEB was associated with substantially lower total inpatient treatment costs when compared with BA (sFr 861,916 vs. sFr 951,877) despite the need for a greater investment at baseline related to higher prices for DEBs. In the absence of dedicated reimbursement incentives, however, use of DEB was shown to be the financially less favorable treatment approach from the physician/facility provider perspective (12-month total earnings: sFr 179,238 vs. sFr 333,678). CONCLUSION: Use of DEBs may be cost-effective through prevention of TLR at 1 year of follow-up. The introduction of dedicated financial incentives aimed at improving DEB reimbursements may help lower total healthcare costs.

The Market Reacts Quickly: Changes in Paclitaxel Vascular Device Purchasing Within the Ascension Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: A meta-analysis of trials in endovascular therapy suggested an increased mortality associated with treatment exposure to paclitaxel. Multiple publications and corrections of prior data were performed, and the United States Food and Drug Administration has issued multiple advisories regarding paclitaxel use. We analyzed how this controversy impacted device purchasing and related utilization patterns in the period immediately following publication of the meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ascension Healthcare System purchase data over a 14-month period were synthesized across centers for both paclitaxel and non-paclitaxel devices. A fixed-effects regression model and a binary regression model with facility-level controls were used to compare purchasing patterns before and after the meta-analysis. Purchase volumes of each paclitaxel device fell. Pooled purchase volumes of all paclitaxel devices decreased from a 14-month peak of 631 devices in October 2018 to a 14-month nadir of 359 devices in February 2019. An F-test comparing the pooled-month specific fixed effects for the months before vs after the publication of the meta-analysis has an F-statistic of 11.64, suggesting that average purchasing levels in the two periods are statistically different (P<.001). Utilization of non-paclitaxel devices did not decline. CONCLUSIONS: Purchase volumes of paclitaxel devices decreased immediately during the months following publication of the related meta-analysis. Total Ascension-wide paclitaxel device purchase volume in February 2019 demonstrated a 43.1% reduction from peak monthly purchase volume during the assessed period and a 32.5% reduction compared with November 2019, the last month preceding publication of the meta-analysis.

The paclitaxel-eluting stent in percutaneous coronary intervention: Part II. Comparison with the sirolimus-eluting stent, economics, and unanswered questions.

The paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents are currently the only drug-eluting stents approved for use in the United States. These 2 stents differ in terms of mechanism of drug action, the construct of the stent itself, and the drug delivery polymer. Clinical trials have demonstrated superiority of both paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents when compared with bare-metal stents in terms of reducing restenosis and the need for target vessel revascularization. Recently published head-to-head trials have not conclusively shown 1 drug-eluting stent to be superior to the other, but have demonstrated more favorable angiographic results with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent; however, no significant difference has been demonstrated in clinical outcomes such as myocardial infarction or death. In terms of economics, the paclitaxel-eluting stent is substantially more expensive than the bare-metal stent. However, by significantly reducing the risk of restenosis and need for repeat revascularization, the higher direct cost of the paclitaxel-eluting stent may in theory be offset by lower overall healthcare costs, although economic analyses have yet to definitively establish that the paclitaxel-eluting stent is truly cost-effective. There is still much to be discovered regarding the paclitaxel-eluting stent, specifically the optimal stent design and drug release mechanism, the relative safety and efficacy of the paclitaxel-eluting stent compared with other drug-eluting stents, the long-term effects of the paclitaxel-eluting stent, the ideal antiplatelet regimen to use in patients with a paclitaxel-eluting stent, the safety and efficacy of the paclitaxel-eluting stent in various high-risk patient groups, and the ultimate cost-effectiveness of this device.

Drug-coated balloons are replacing the need for nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery.

Amassed evidence from several randomized controlled trials and high quality meta-analyses clearly support the primary use of paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) in the superficial femoral artery over traditional plain balloon angioplasty or primary bare nitinol stenting with significantly lower vascular restenosis, less need for repeat procedures, improved quality of life and potential cost savings for the healthcare system. Stents may be reserved for bail-out in case of a suboptimal dilatation result, and for selected more complex lesions, or in case of critical limb ischemia in order to eliminate vessel recoil and maximize immediate hemodynamic gain. Debulking atherectomy remains unproven, but holds a lot of promise in particular in combination with PCBs, in order to improve compliance of the vessel wall by plaque removal, allow for a better angioplasty result and optimize drug transfer and bioavailability. The present overview summarizes and discusses current evidence about femoropopliteal PCB angioplasty compared to the historical standard of plain old balloon angioplasty and bare nitinol stents. Available evidence is appraised in the context of clinically meaningful results, relevant unresolved issues are highlighted, and future trends are discussed.

The NICE recommendation for drug-coated balloons and its global impact.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) has been demonstrated. The objective of this article is to provide comparative cost efficacy data for DCB angioplasty in various countries based on the original methodology of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP) at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2010. STUDY DESIGN: Published and unpublished Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were evaluated for comparison in selected countries. Furthermore, a systematic review of economic evaluations of DCB angioplasty versus standard treatments (uncoated balloon angioplasty or drug-eluting stent implantations) was conducted. METHODS: National cost efficacy data were evaluated using Markov state transition models which were adapted to fit each country's device and procedure related costs. The clinical input for adverse events was defined with two relevant trials for in-stent restenosis of bare metal stents (BMS-ISR) and of drug-eluting stents (DES-ISR). RESULTS: In the UK, Germany, Switzerland, South Africa, Japan and Brazil, DCB angioplasty is cost-effective when compared with drug-eluting stents to treat either BMS-ISR or DES-ISR. CONCLUSIONS: DCB angioplasty ought to be the preferred treatment option for patients with BMS-ISR and DES-ISR from the payers' point of view.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated. LIMITATIONS: As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease. CONCLUSIONS: For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost effectiveness of liposomal doxorubicin vs. paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced AIDS-Kaposi's sarcoma.

OBJECTIVE: Epidemic Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is one of the most common acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) defining malignancies, a disease with stigmatized clinical features that characterizes the diagnosis of AIDS. This study aims to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis between liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel in treating AIDS-KS. METHODS: A 21 week decision tree analysis was created using a hospital perspective to compare treatment patterns with liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel. All costs were calculated in 2011 US dollars and obtained from an academic treatment center. Acquisition costs were obtained from public estimates using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Effectiveness was estimated based on a Phase 3 study of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel (Von-Roenn et al.). Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment and not the disease were included in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Cost minimization analysis showed that treatment with liposomal doxorubicin was $18,125 whereas paclitaxel costs $12,347. After accounting for response rate, the results showed that liposomal doxorubicin costs $39,403 versus $21,661 for paclitaxel. This study has some limitations. Clinical data were derived from different clinical trials. In addition, many assumptions were made. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel is dominant due to its lower acquisition cost and high response rate. Acquisition cost of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel are significantly different. After accounting for all the factors that contribute to cost and response rate, paclitaxel is more cost effective than liposomal doxorubicin.

Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty in patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: The economic impact of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is substantial, highlighting the need for cost-effective treatment strategies. HYPOTHESIS: Compared to plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) or repeat DES implantation, drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty is a cost-effective therapy for DES-ISR. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was used to compare DCB angioplasty with POBA and repeat DES implantation. Model input parameters were obtained from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a German healthcare payer's perspective. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Initial procedure costs amounted to €3488 for DCB angioplasty and to €2782 for POBA. Over a 6-month time horizon, the DCB strategy was less costly (€4028 vs €4169) and more effective in terms of life-years (LYs) gained (0.497 versus 0.489) than POBA. The DES strategy incurred initial costs of €3167 and resulted in 0.494 LYs gained, at total costs of €4101 after a 6-month follow-up. Thus, DCB angioplasty was the least costly and most effective strategy. Base-case results were influenced mostly by initial procedure costs, target lesion revascularization rates, and the costs of dual antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: DCB angioplasty is a cost-effective treatment option for coronary DES-ISR. The higher initial costs of the DCB strategy compared to POBA or repeat DES implantation are offset by later cost savings.

Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation for treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). The cost-effectiveness of this practice is unknown. METHODS: A Markov state-transition decision analytic model accounting for varying procedural efficacy rates, complication rates, and cost estimates was developed to compare DCB angioplasty with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement in patients with bare-metal stent (BMS)-ISR. Data on procedural outcomes associated with both treatment strategies were derived from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a health care payer perspective. Effectiveness was expressed as life-years gained. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, initial procedure costs amounted to €3,604.14 for DCB angioplasty and to €3,309.66 for DES implantation. Over a 12-month time horizon, the DCB strategy was found to be less costly (€4,130.38 vs. €5,305.30) and slightly more effective in terms of life expectancy (0.983 vs. 0.976 years) than the DES strategy. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated that, in comparison with DES implantation, the cost advantage of the DCB strategy was robust to clinically plausible variations in the values of key model input parameters. The variables with the greatest impact on base-case results were the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel after DCB angioplasty, the use of generic clopidogrel, and variations in the costs associated with the DCB device. CONCLUSION: DCB angioplasty is a cost-effective treatment option for coronary BMS-ISR. The higher initial costs of DCB are more than offset by later cost-savings, predominantly as a result of reduced medication costs.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.

Paclitaxel and gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in advanced non-nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer. An efficacy and cost analysis randomized study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) is poor. Median survival of these patients following chemotherapy is in the range of 6 to 9 months. In the present randomized phase III trial we compared two new combinations containing new drugs with proven activity in phase II studies with patients with HNC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 1999 until November 2004, 166 eligible patients with HNC were enrolled in the study. They were treated with paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (group A, 85 patients) or with paclitaxel, as in group A, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks (group B, 81 patients). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in response rate (20% versus 29%, P = 0.21), time to disease progression (median; 4.4 months versus 6.0 months, P = 0.09) and survival (median; 8.6 months versus 11.05 months, P = 0.25). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. The most frequently reported side effect, apart from alopecia, was neutropenia. Overall, there was no significant difference in severe toxicity between the two treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The present study could not demonstrate a survival benefit with either regimen. Both treatments were well tolerated. Randomized studies comparing each of the two regimens with standard chemotherapy are warranted.

A systematic review and economic analysis of drug-eluting coronary stents available in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting coronary stents used in Australia with bare-metal stents and determine whether the benefits are greater for high-risk subgroups. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library database were searched to identify eligible randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English between January 1966 and June 2004. STUDY SELECTION: Seven randomised controlled trials that assessed polymer-based paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with coronary atherosclerosis and reported on stent thrombosis, mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting or target lesion revascularisation. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers appraised eligible studies and extracted data. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated for each outcome and pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method. DATA SYNTHESIS: Rates of stent thrombosis, mortality, myocardial infarction and bypass grafts did not differ by stent type. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) resulted in a 71%-80% lower risk of revascularisation at 12 months (RR 0.29 [95% CI, 0.20-0.43] for paclitaxel-eluting stents [n = 1593 patients]; RR 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13-0.29] for sirolimus-eluting stents [n = 1296 patients]). Similar benefits were seen in several high-risk subgroups of patients: those with diabetes, lesion length > 20 mm and target-vessel diameter < or = 2.5 mm. The benefits of DESs in these high-risk groups over lower-risk groups were inconclusive because of low numbers. The cost per revascularisation avoided by using DESs was 3,750-6,100 Australian dollars, with an estimated cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained of 46,829-76,467 Australian dollars. In sensitivity analyses, estimates varied from DESs being cost-saving to costing an additional 314,385 Australian dollars per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: DESs are effective in reducing revascularisation. Estimates of cost-effectiveness are very sensitive to changes in estimates of their true effects in clinical practice, market price and the number of stents used per patient. Decisions to limit DESs to only patients at the highest risk of restenosis may improve their cost-effectiveness but will need to be reassessed when evidence is available to compare absolute benefits between patient groups.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: if only all things were equal.

They reduce rates of restenosis but not mortality or infarction--so are they worth it?