Cognitive and psychiatric adverse events during adjunctive cenobamate treatment in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive and psychiatric adverse events in patients with epilepsy are important determinants of therapeutic outcomes and patient quality of life. We assessed the relationship between adjunctive cenobamate treatment and selected cognitive and psychiatric treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in adults with uncontrolled focal epilepsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of pooled populations of patients with focal epilepsy from two phase 2, randomized, double-blind clinical trials; two open-label extensions (OLEs) of those trials; and a long-term, open-label, phase 3 safety study. Occurrence of cognitive and psychiatric TEAEs in patients treated with adjunctive cenobamate or placebo during double-blind treatment were evaluated. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of the cognitive and psychiatric TEAEs, defined as the number of TEAEs per patient-year of treatment, during up to 7 years of long-term adjunctive cenobamate treatment, were determined in the pooled OLE and phase 3 patient populations. RESULTS: The pooled randomized trials resulted in a population of 442 patients treated with cenobamate (100 mg/day: n = 108; 200 mg/day: n = 223; 400 mg/day: n = 111) and 216 placebo-treated patients. The combined open-label studies resulted in pooled populations of cenobamate-treated patients ranging from n = 1690 during Year 1 to n = 103 during Year 7. Among cenobamate-treated (all doses) and placebo-treated patients during double-blind treatment, cognitive TEAEs were reported by ≤ 1.9 % (range, 0 %-1.9 %) and ≤ 0.5 % (range, 0 %-0.5 %), respectively, and psychiatric TEAEs by ≤ 3.6 % (range, 0 %-3.6 %) and ≤ 3.2 % (range, 0 %-3.2 %), respectively. During up to 7 years of open-label adjunctive cenobamate treatment, exposure-adjusted incidence rates of cognitive and psychiatric TEAEs were < 0.018 and < 0.038 events per patient-year, respectively. Discontinuation of adjunctive cenobamate due to cognitive or psychiatric TEAEs assessed in this study during double-blind or open-label treatment occurred in ≤ 0.3 % and ≤ 1.7 % of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive and psychiatric TEAEs were reported by similar numbers of cenobamate- and placebo-treated patients during double-blind adjunctive cenobamate treatment (< 4 % of patients), and exposure-adjusted incidence rates of these TEAEs remained low during open-label cenobamate treatment for up to 7 years. Treatment discontinuations due to these TEAEs were rare. The results of this post-hoc analysis indicate that adjunctive cenobamate treatment exhibits a low incidence of cognitive or psychiatric TEAEs in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures.

Greater need for treatment optimization in patients with epilepsy initiating adjunctive therapy: Results of a retrospective claims analysis of antiseizure medication drug load in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective, observational study used US claims data to assess changes in antiseizure medication (ASM) drug load for a cohort of patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of epilepsy (ICD-10 code G40.xxx) who started new adjunctive ASM treatment with one of 4 branded (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, perampanel) or 4 unbranded (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, topiramate) ASMs between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020 were identified from IBM MarketScan® research databases (primary study population). Patients must have been continuously enrolled 360 days before the start of the new ASM (eligibility period). Follow-up was from the start of new ASM until Day 540 (∼18 months). The primary endpoint was concomitant ASM drug load, which included all ASMs except the new (comparator) ASM. A sensitivity analysis population included adults with epilepsy who were continuously enrolled for ≥ 180 days during at least one calendar year in the study period (2016-2020), whether or not the comparator ASM was new or existing during that period. Total ASM drug load, which included comparator ASM and concomitant ASMs, was assessed in the sensitivity analysis population. RESULTS: In total, 21,332 patients were included in the primary study population, of which 5767 initiated branded ASMs and 15,565 initiated unbranded ASMs. A total of 392,426 patients were included in the sensitivity analysis population during at least one calendar year 2016-2020. Concomitant ASM drug load increased in the 360 days prior to new ASM start and slightly declined thereafter. Mean concomitant ASM drug load for the primary population was 1.6 (SD 1.8) at new ASM start. Concomitant drug load was higher among those starting branded ASM comparators compared to those starting unbranded comparators. Mean total ASM drug load for patients increased over time and was approximately double for patients exposed to branded ASMs (mean range 2.1 to 2.7) compared to that of patients exposed to any unbranded ASM (mean range 1.0 to 1.3). CONCLUSION: Concomitant ASM drug load increased prior to addition of new ASM, with higher increases observed among patients starting branded vs unbranded ASMs, followed by slight decreases thereafter. Total drug load increased linearly among all patients. These findings underscore the need for ongoing ASM regimen evaluation and treatment optimization in patients with epilepsy.

Sustainability of seizure reduction and seizure control with adjunctive cenobamate: Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: In this post hoc analysis of a subset of patients from a long-term, open-label phase 3 study, we assessed ≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% seizure reduction and sustainability of these responses with cenobamate using a time-to-event analytical approach. METHODS: Of 240 patients with uncontrolled focal seizures who had adequate seizure data available, 214 completed the 12-week titration phase and received ≥1 dose of cenobamate in the maintenance phase (max dose 400 mg/day) and were included in this post hoc analysis. Among patients who met an initial given seizure-reduction level (≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, or 100%), sustainability of that response was measured using a time-to-event methodology. An event was defined as the occurrence of a study visit at which the seizure frequency during the interval since the prior study visit exceeded the initially attained reduction level. Study visits during the maintenance phase occurred at 3-month intervals. RESULTS: Of the 214 patients analyzed, 188 (88%), 177 (83%), 160 (75%), and 145 (68%) met ≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90%, and 100% seizure-reduction responses, respectively, for at least one study visit interval during the maintenance phase. The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) time to first visit without a ≥50% seizure reduction was not reached by 30 months of follow-up (53% of patients maintained their initial ≥50% seizure reduction). Median (95% CI) time to first visit without sustaining the initial ≥75%, ≥90%, or 100% seizure reduction was 13.0 (7.5-21.9) months, 7.5 (5.4-11.6) months, and 7.0 (5.3-10.4) months, respectively. Among the 145 patients who had 100% seizure reduction during at least one study visit, 22% remained seizure-free for at least 30 months and 63% had ≤3 study visits with seizures. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive treatment with cenobamate led to sustained seizure reductions during the maintenance phase of the phase 3 safety study.

Incidence of mental health conditions by seizure control among adults with epilepsy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Mental health conditions (MHCs) are frequent comorbidities among people with epilepsy; however, the influence of seizure control on the incidence of MHCs is not well reported. This retrospective observational cohort study based on claims data evaluated the effects of indicators of poor seizure control on the incidence of MHCs among MHC-naïve people with epilepsy. We hypothesized that poor seizure control is associated with new-onset MHC diagnoses and/or new prescription drugs for MHCs. METHODS: This study utilized a sample of patients from HealthVerity Marketplace, which includes more than 150 US commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers, to identify a cohort of adults (age ≥18 years) with prevalent epilepsy. Follow-up started on day 1 (January 1) after a 1-year eligibility assessment period occurring in calendar year 2017 or 2018. Patients were followed up until the occurrence of an incident MHC event (primary outcome), defined as a mental health diagnosis or psychotropic drug prescription. Time from follow-up to incident MHC diagnosis or to a drug prescription specific to depression or anxiety disorder was analyzed as a secondary outcome. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions were estimated with time-varying covariates, measured in 6-month intervals during follow-up. Time-varying covariates were based on the occurrence of 4 variables used as indicators of poor seizure control in the prior period: epilepsy-related emergent care admissions, epilepsy-related inpatient admissions, epilepsy electroencephalography referrals, and exposure to one or more new antiseizure medications (ASMs). RESULTS: From a random sample of 40,000 people with epilepsy, 2563 (mean age 46.1 years; 50.6% male) were included in the analysis. Incident MHC events were observed in 27.7% (incidence rate 24.4 events per 100 person-years over 2,915.7 total person-years of follow-up). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) time to event was 232.7 (186.3) days. Among the 4 variables, epilepsy-related emergent care admissions were associated with an increased risk of incident MHC events in the following 6-month period (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.676, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.386, 2.026, p < 0.001) as were prescriptions for new ASMs in the previous period (HR = 1.702, 95% CI: 1.359, 2.132, p < 0.001). Previous epilepsy-related emergent care admissions (HR = 1.650, 95% CI: 1.347, 2.021, p < 0.001) and new ASMs (HR = 1.632, 95% CI: 1.280, 2.081, p < 0.001) also predicted an increased risk of incident depression or anxiety in the following 6-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Previous indicators of poor seizure control, including epilepsy-related emergent care admissions and new ASMs, predicted increased risk of new MHC events, including depression and anxiety, during the following 6-month interval in MHC-naïve patients with prevalent epilepsy. These data suggest that poor seizure control can increase the subsequent risk of new mental health diagnoses and treatment among people with epilepsy.

Outcomes and costs of remote patient monitoring among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: An economic model based on the PREDICT RM database.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has been associated with reduced rates of all-cause rehospitalizations and mortality among device recipients, but long-term economic benefits have not been studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic model was developed using the PREDICT RM database comparing outcomes with and without remote monitoring. The database included patients ages 65 to 89 who received a Boston Scientific device from 2006 to 2010. Parametric survival equations were derived for rehospitalization and mortality to predict outcomes over a maximum time horizon of 25 years. The analysis assessed rehospitalization, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness (expressed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year) of remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring. Remote monitoring was associated with reduced mortality; average life expectancy and average quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.77 years and 0.64, respectively (6.85 life years and 5.65 quality-adjusted life years). When expressed per patient-year, remote monitoring patients had fewer subsequent rehospitalizations (by 0.08 per patient-year) and lower hospitalization costs (by $554 per patient year). With longer life expectancies, remote monitoring patients experienced an average of 0.64 additional subsequent rehospitalizations with increased average lifetime hospitalization costs of $2784. Total costs of outpatient and physician claims were higher with remote monitoring ($47 515 vs $42 792), but average per patient-year costs were lower ($6232 vs $6244). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10 752 per quality-adjusted life year, making remote monitoring high-value care. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring is a cost-effective approach for the lifetime management of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Reductions in concomitant antiseizure medication drug load during adjunctive cenobamate therapy: Post-hoc analysis of a subset of patients from a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients with epilepsy require polytherapy, which increases their antiseizure medication (ASM) drug load, a measure that considers the doses of all ASMs a patient is taking. Changes in concomitant ASM drug load after adding cenobamate were evaluated post-hoc in a subset of the open-label, phase 3 study. METHODS: Patients 18-70 years old with uncontrolled focal seizures taking 1-3 ASMs were enrolled. Total concomitant ASM drug load (not including cenobamate) was calculated by dividing the patient's prescribed dose for each ASM by its defined daily dose, per the World Health Organization, then summing the ratios. Changes in concomitant ASM drug load were measured from baseline in 3-month intervals up to 24 months by both total and class-specific ASM drug load. Subgroups of interest included: older adults (65-70 years), prior epilepsy-related surgery vs none, and baseline seizure frequency < 3 vs ≥ 3 seizures/28 days. RESULTS: Data from 240 patients were available (mean age 41.8 years, mean baseline drug load 3.57). Following cenobamate initiation, the mean concomitant ASM drug load was reduced by 29.4 % at Month 12 % and 31.8 % at Month 24. Reductions occurred in all assessed ASM drug classes, with the largest reduction in benzodiazepines (55.2 % at Month 24). Each assessed subgroup exceeded a 30 % reduction in concomitant ASM drug load at Month 24. Over 24 months, maintenance of ≥ 50 % response occurred in 89.3 %, 86.4 %, and 90.6 % of patients with low (-0.25 to <0), moderate (-0.59 to -0.25), or high (-3.3 to -0.59) numerical reductions in concomitant ASM drug load from baseline, respectively, compared with 86.0 % in patients with no change in drug load; maintenance of 100 % response occurred in 80.7 %, 84.3 %, and 70.0 % of patients with low, moderate, or high numerical reductions in concomitant ASM drug load, compared with 82.0 % in patients with no change. CONCLUSIONS: Adding cenobamate led to reduced mean concomitant ASM drug loads during 1 and 2 years of treatment. Reductions occurred regardless of ASM drug class, patient age, or epilepsy disease characteristics and did not impact maintenance of response rates.

Safety and Efficacy of Cenobamate for the Treatment of Focal Seizures in Older Patients: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase III, Multicenter, Open-Label Study.

BACKGROUND: Cenobamate is an antiseizure medication (ASM) approved in the US and Europe for the treatment of uncontrolled focal seizures. OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of a phase III, open-label safety study assessed the safety and efficacy of adjunctive cenobamate in older adults versus the overall study population. METHODS: Adults aged 18-70 years with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of one to three ASMs were enrolled in the phase III, open-label safety study; adults aged 65-70 years from that study were included in our safety analysis. Discontinuations due to adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed throughout the study in all patients who received one or more doses of cenobamate (safety study population). Efficacy was assessed post hoc in patients who had adequate seizure data available (post hoc efficacy population); we assessed patients aged 65-70 years from that population. Overall, 100% responder rates were assessed in the post hoc efficacy maintenance-phase population in 3-month intervals. Concomitant ASM drug load changes were also measured. For each ASM, drug load was defined as the ratio of actual drug dose/day to the World Health Organization defined daily dose (DDD). RESULTS: Of 1340 patients (mean age 39.7 years) in the safety study population, 42 were ≥ 65 years of age (mean age 67.0 years, 52.4% female). Median duration of exposure was 36.1 and 36.9 months for overall patients and older patients, respectively, and mean epilepsy duration was 22.9 and 38.5 years, respectively. At 1, 2, and 3 years, 80%, 72%, and 68% of patients overall, and 76%, 71%, and 69% of older patients, respectively, remained on cenobamate. Common TEAEs (≥ 20%) were somnolence and dizziness in overall patients, and somnolence, dizziness, fall, fatigue, balance disorder, and upper respiratory tract infection in older patients. Falls in older patients occurred after a mean 452.1 days of adjunctive cenobamate treatment (mean dose 262.5 mg/day; mean concomitant ASM drug load 2.46). Of 240 patients in the post hoc efficacy population, 18 were ≥ 65 years of age. Mean seizure frequency at baseline was 18.1 seizures/28 days for the efficacy population and 3.1 seizures/28 days for older patients. Rates of 100% seizure reduction within 3-month intervals during the maintenance phase increased over time for the overall population (n = 214) and older adults (n = 15), reaching 51.9% and 78.6%, respectively, by 24 months. Mean percentage change in concomitant ASM drug load, not including cenobamate, was reduced in the overall efficacy population (31.8%) and older patients (36.3%) after 24 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this post hoc analysis showed notable rates of efficacy in older patients taking adjunctive cenobamate. Rates of several individual TEAEs occurred more frequently in older patients. Further reductions in concomitant ASMs may be needed in older patients when starting cenobamate to avoid adverse effects such as somnolence, dizziness, and falls. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02535091.

Real-world analysis of retention on cenobamate in patients with epilepsy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective, observational study used US claims data to assess retention rates on cenobamate compared with four branded antiseizure medications (ASMs) in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Adults (≥18 years) with prevalent epilepsy (ICD-10 code G40.xx) and ≥ 1 prescription for cenobamate or any of the newer branded ASMs (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, lacosamide, or perampanel) between May 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were identified from the HealthVerity Marketplace database. At least 360 days of continuous enrollment was required before and after the index date (Day 1 of initiating cenobamate or branded ASM). Patients were followed until cessation of cenobamate or branded ASM or the end of data collection using Kaplan-Meier methods. Retention was compared between cenobamate and the branded ASMs (both as a group and individually) using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: In total, 4109 patients were included (195 cenobamate; 3914 branded ASMs). A higher proportion of patients in the cenobamate group compared with the branded ASMs group had concurrent focal and generalized epilepsy (65.6% vs 40.0%) and were on ≥ 3 concomitant ASMs (48.2% vs 12.8%) at the index date. Median time to discontinuation (i.e., the time that half the patients discontinued) was not quite reached after 12 months in the cenobamate group (50.3% of patients remained on cenobamate) and was 7.7 months in the branded ASMs group. Retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs the branded ASMs group (p = 0.04545) and vs the individual ASMs lacosamide (p = 0.03044) and perampanel (p = 0.01558). Twelve-month retention rates (95% confidence intervals) were 50.3% (43.1%-57.0%) for cenobamate, 40.5% (38.9%-42.0%) for branded ASMs overall, 42.3% (38.6%-46.0%) for brivaracetam, 44.1% (39.2%-49.0%) for eslicarbazepine, 39.9% (38.0%-41.8%) for lacosamide, and 36.8% (31.9%-41.8%) for perampanel. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis, retention was significantly higher with cenobamate vs a pooled group of four branded ASMs despite a greater frequency of patients in the cenobamate group having characteristics of more difficult-to-treat epilepsy.

Economic modeling of new stent platforms to evaluate cost effectiveness: analysis of the TAXUS Liberté versus TAXUS express stents.

BACKGROUND: With the changing health care environment, cost effectiveness is an important adjunct to clinical investigation when assessing new medical devices. This study presents an economic model to evaluate cost effectiveness of coronary stents. METHODS: Markov modeling was developed comparing total costs (Medicare payer perspective) between TAXUS Liberté and TAXUS Express based on 3-year clinical outcomes from the TAXUS ATLAS Small Vessel and Long Lesion trials. RESULTS: The TAXUS Liberté 2.25-mm stent provided cost savings relative to TAXUS Express from a payer perspective ($17,605 vs. $20,281), driven by reduced target vessel revascularization (0.16 events/patient vs. 0.33 events/patient). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, TAXUS Liberté was less costly with fewer major adverse cardiac events in over 99% of parameter sets. The TAXUS Liberté Long (38 mm) stent was cost neutral relative to TAXUS Express from a payer perspective ($18,545 vs. $18,551) with fewer myocardial infarctions and cardiac deaths. Accounting for angiography-driven revascularizations, TAXUS Liberté 2.25 mm still provided cost savings relative to TAXUS Express ($16,822 vs. $19,139), although TAXUS Liberté Long was more expensive than TAXUS Express ($17,886 vs. $17,652). From a hospital perspective, TAXUS Liberté Long provided cost savings up to a price premium of $671/stent, driven by fewer stents employed per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the utility of economic modeling in assessing new stent platforms. TAXUS Liberté 2.25 mm is economically dominant relative to TAXUS Express when treating small vessels. TAXUS Liberté Long is cost neutral to modestly more costly than TAXUS Express 2.25 mm from a payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of golimumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in Quebec using a patient level state transition microsimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct cost-effectiveness analyses comparing the addition of golimumab to the standard of care (SoC) for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) who are refractory to conventional therapies in Quebec (Canada). METHODS: An individual patient state transition microsimulation model was developed to project health outcomes and costs over 10 years, using a payer perspective. The incremental benefit estimates for golimumab were driven by induction response and risk of a flare. Flare risks post-induction were derived for golimumab from the PURSUIT maintenance trial and extension study, while those for SoC were derived from the placebo arms of the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials (ACT) 1 and 2. Other inputs were derived from multiple sources, including retrospective claims analyses and literature. Costs are reported in 2014 Canadian dollars. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Compared with SoC, golimumab was projected to increase the time spent in mild disease or remission states, decrease flare rates, and increase QALYs. These gains were achieved with higher direct medical costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for golimumab vs SoC was $63,487 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The long-term flare projections for SoC were based on the data available from the ACT 1 and 2 placebo arms, as data were not available from the PURSUIT maintenance or extension trial. Additionally, the study was limited to only SoC and golimumab, due to the availability of individual patient data to analyze. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis concluded that treatment with golimumab is likely more cost-effective vs SoC when considering cost-effectiveness acceptability thresholds from $50,000-$100,000 per QALY.

A new framework for evaluating the health impacts of treatment for Gaucher disease type 1.

BACKGROUND: The Disease Severity Scoring System (DS3) is a validated measure for evaluating Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1) severity. We developed a new framework, consisting of health states, transition probabilities between those states, and preferences for those states (utilities) based on the DS3 to predict long-term outcomes of patients starting treatment. We defined nine mutually exclusive (alive) health states based on three DS3 categories: mild (0 ≤ DS3 ≤ 3.5) without symptoms of bone disease; mild with bone pain, mild with severe skeletal complications (SSC) defined as lytic lesions, avascular necrosis, or fracture; moderate (3.5 < DS3 ≤ 6.5) without SSC; moderate with SSC; marked (6.5 < DS3 ≤ 9.5) without SSC; marked with SSC; severe (9.5 < DS3 ≤ 19) without SSC; and severe with SSC. Health-state transition probabilities and utilities were estimated from a longitudinal sample of patients with GD1 who started enzyme replacement therapy (the DS3 Score Study). Age dependent GD1-specific mortality was derived from published data. We used a Markov state-transition model to illustrate how to estimate time spent in each health state. RESULTS: The average predicted utilities for each health state ranged from 0.76 for mild disease with no clinical symptoms of bone disease to 0.52 with severe disease with SSC. Transition probabilities depended on disease severity (DS3 score) at treatment initiation and whether patients had undergone a total splenectomy or had an intact spleen/partial splenectomy prior to starting treatment. Patients who started treatment with intact or residual spleens spent more time in better health states than those who started treatment with total splenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: This new framework, which is based on the DS3, can be used to project the long-term outcomes of GD1 patients starting treatment. The framework could also be used to compare the long-term outcomes of different GD1 treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01136304 . Registered: May 31, 2010 (retrospectively registered).

Lenalidomide for multiple myeloma: cost-effectiveness in patients with one prior therapy in England and Wales.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) versus DEX alone in managing multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have failed one prior therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual simulation model was designed to capture the costs and outcomes of LEN/DEX versus DEX therapy in relapsed refractory MM patients. MM009/010 efficacy data were adjusted for treatment cross-over and extrapolated to patient lifetime. Resource use for MM disease progression and adverse events were obtained from expert physicians and costed from the perspective of the National Health Service (England and UK) and included a patient access scheme for LEN. Utility values were obtained from published literature. RESULTS: The simulation model estimated an incremental improvement in time to progression of 9.5 months, an additional 3.2 life-years, and 2.2 quality adjusted life years (QALY) for LEN/DEX compared to DEX alone. Including the costs of therapy with the patient access scheme, adverse events, and disease follow-up, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £30,153/QALY for LEN/DEX compared to DEX alone in MM patients who have failed one prior therapy. CONCLUSION: LEN/DEX is a cost effective oncology therapy from the perspective of the NHS for MM patients with one prior treatment.

Potential cost saving of Epoetin alfa in elective hip or knee surgery due to reduction in blood transfusions and their side effects: a discrete-event simulation model.

OBJECTIVES: Transfusion of allogeneic blood is still common in orthopedic surgery. This analysis evaluates from the perspective of a German hospital the potential cost savings of Epoetin alfa (EPO) compared to predonated autologous blood transfusions or to a nobloodconservationstrategy (allogeneic blood transfusion strategy)during elective hip and knee replacement surgery. METHODS: Individual patients (N = 50,000) were simulated based on data from controlled trials, the German DRG institute (InEK) and various publications and entered into a stochastic model (Monte-Carlo) of three treatment arms: EPO, preoperative autologous donation and nobloodconservationstrategy. All three strategies lead to a different risk for an allogeneic blood transfusion. The model focused on the costs and events of the three different procedures. The costs were obtained from clinical trial databases, the German DRG system, patient records and medical publications: transfusion (allogeneic red blood cells: €320/unit and autologous red blood cells: €250/unit), pneumonia treatment (€5,000), and length of stay (€300/day). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine which factors had an influence on the model's clinical and cost outcomes. RESULTS: At acquisition costs of €200/40,000 IU EPO is cost saving compared to autologous blood donation, and cost-effective compared to a nobloodconservationstrategy. The results were most sensitive to the cost of EPO, blood units and hospital days. CONCLUSIONS: EPO might become an attractive blood conservation strategy for anemic patients at reasonable costs due to the reduction in allogeneic blood transfusions, in the modeled incidence of transfusion-associated pneumonia andthe prolongedlength of stay.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab, licensed for patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic (IgE mediated) asthma, was found to be cost-effective based upon its clinical trial data. Observational studies have been undertaken to determine the real life outcomes of using omalizumab in the community. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab based upon observational data from the Netherlands and compare to its cost-effectiveness using clinical trial data. METHODS: An observational study (eXpeRience) recruited allergic asthma patients eligible for Omalizumab therapy and followed them while on treatment. At 1 year, data from the Dutch patients enrolled in eXpeRience were examined to estimate the number of exacerbations and resource use while on omalizumab therapy compared to the year prior to omalizumab use. Observational data were used in a Markov model to calculate the lifetime cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In the 1 year prior to omalizumab therapy the per-person rate of exacerbations was 3.39 compared to 1.07 in the year taking omalizumab. The discounted incremental lifetime additional costs for omalizumab were €55,865 for 1.46 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY), resulting in €38,371/QALY. Using the INNOVATE clinical trial outcomes and current resource use, the prior ratio was €34,911/QALY, similar to the observational ratio. As in all observational studies, the main limitation is obtaining complete and accurate data. Patients with missing exacerbation or response data were excluded from this analysis. CONCLUSION: Non-clinical trial experience with omalizumab supported the finding of fewer exacerbations in the allergic asthma population while treated with omalizumab, and therapy was found to continue to have an attractive cost-effectiveness ratio.

Cost-effectiveness of a FISH assay for the diagnosis of melanoma in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a FISH assay in melanoma diagnosis in the USA. METHOD: A model was developed simulating the addition of FISH to the diagnosis of suspected melanoma. A decision analytic module simulated diagnosis using microscopic assessment alone versus addition of FISH (sensitivity: 92%; specificity: 94%). The authors simulated a clinical setting in which an initial excisional biopsy microscopic assessment (sensitivity: 73%; specificity: 78%) was followed by dermatopathologist assessment (sensitivity: 89%; specificity: 79%) for inconclusive results. Diagnostic strategies 1 and 2 added FISH to the initial and dermatopathologist assessments, respectively. A Markov outcomes module simulated patients' remaining lifetime, including treatment. RESULTS: In diagnostic strategies 1 and 2, the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was US$14,930 and 43,925, respectively, versus no FISH. Cost per misdiagnosis avoided was US$3292 and 3759, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity without FISH were both ≥88%; however, addition of FISH exceeded US$100,000/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: In specific clinical settings, FISH could be cost effective for melanoma diagnosis.