Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach. / [Artículo traducido] Asciminib para el tratamiento de la leucemia mieloide crónica en tercera línea: análisis coste-efectividad basado en el enfoque de remisión libre de tratamiento.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for 3rd-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with seven states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved two independent models comparing asciminib vs. bosutinib and asciminib vs. ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib has a lower cost of 30,275 €. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591 €) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs. bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to two prior lines of treatment in a cost-effective manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for third-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with 7 states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved 2 independent models comparing asciminib vs bosutinib and asciminib vs ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib have a lower cost of 30,275€. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591€) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to 2 prior lines of treatment in a cost-effectiveness manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

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

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

Patterns of care and economic consequences of using bone-targeted agents for castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients with bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events in Switzerland - the SAKK 95/16 prostate study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines state that bone-targeted agents such as denosumab or zoledronic acid at doses used for bone metastasis are not indicated for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) with bone metastases. Whereas denosumab has never been studied in this patient population, zoledronic acid has been shown to be ineffective in decreasing the risk for skeletal-related events. This study estimates the prevalence and economic consequences of real-world use of bone-targeted agents for mCSPC patients in Switzerland. METHODS: To estimate the frequency of bone-targeted agent administration and skeletal-related events, data from a non-interventional, cross-sectional survey involving oncologists across Switzerland (SAKK 95/16) was combined with data from the Swiss National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration (NICER). Economic parameters were calculated from the perspective of the healthcare system over the median time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression for the extrapolated patient group, using data from NICER. The cost calculation covered costs for bone-targeted agents, their administration and skeletal-related events. The time to PSA progression (33.2 months), as well as the probability and cost of skeletal-related events were derived from the literature. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 86 physicians treating 417 patients, of whom 106 (25.4%) had prostate cancer, with 36 (34.0%) of these mCSPC. The majority of mCSPC patients (52.8%, n = 19) received bone-targeted agents monthly. Denosumab was the treatment of choice in 84.2% of patients (n = 16). Extrapolation using data from NICER indicated that 568 mCSPC patients may be treated with bone-targeted agents at doses used for bone metastasis  every year in Switzerland, leading to estimated total costs of more than CHF 8.3 million over 33.2 months. Because of its more frequent prescription and higher price, it appears that almost 93% of the total costs can be attributed to denosumab. For both denosumab and zoledronic acid, the most expensive components were the cost of administration and the drug cost, making up more than 90% of the total costs, with the rest being costs of skeletal-related events. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the administration of bone-targeted agents in doses used for bone-metastatic diseases to prevent skeletal-related events is frequent in the setting of mCSPC and results in significant costs for the healthcare system.

Highly Efficient Reusable Carboxy Group Functionalized Imidazolium Salts for a Simple and Cost-effective Preparation of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone Derivatives.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: In the current study, environmentally benign and cost-effective procedures were suggested for the preparation of carboxy group functionalized imidazolium salts, including [Cmmim]BF4 - or [Cmmim]Br- as a new, reusable Brønsted acidic ionic liquid (BAIL) catalyst. Then, the catalytic performance of [Cmmim]BF4 - or [Cmmim]Br- were successfully inspected towards the three---components one---pot preparation of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone derivatives 4a-4q. The mentioned procedures show short reaction times, easy work-up procedure, green conditions, high yields of the products, high potent of recovering, and reusing capability. The current study is useful and adequate for the application and development of imidazolium salts on the basis of green chemistry principles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An aromatic aldehyde (1 mmol), barbituric acid (1 mmol), and malononitrile (1 mmol) were placed in a round---bottomed flask containing ethanol (5 mL). BAILs A and B (0.1 mmol, 10 mol%) were added to the mixture. The suspension was magnetically stirred at room temperature for an appropriate time (Table 2). After completion of the reaction, which was monitored by TLC (n---hexane:ethyl acetate = 3:1), the pure product was filtered off to separate the catalyst, washed with water, and recrystallized from ethanol to afford the pure compound. After separation of the product, the catalyst was recovered by evaporation of water, washed with Et2O, dried under vacuum for 2 h, and reused for the same reaction. RESULTS: The mentioned procedure shows short reaction times, easy work-up procedure, green conditions, high yields of the products, and high potent of recovering and reusing capability. CONCLUSION: In this study, we unveiled the synthesis of a new acetic acid functionalized ionic liquids [Cmmim]BF4 - BAIL A or [Cmmim]Br- BAIL B and their application for the preparation of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone derivatives via a three-component reaction among various aromatic aldehydes, barbituric acid, and malononitrile under mild and metal-free conditions. A wide range of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone derivatives bearing diverse functional groups was obtained in short reaction and excellent yields. Operational simplicity, recoverability, and reusability of catalysts, cheap and chemically stable reagents, high catalytic activity, easy work-up, and the eco-friendly procedure, make this method environmentally benign and cost-effective.

[Impact of stopping reimbursement of olmesartan for hypertensive patients in primary care]. / Impact du déremboursement de l'olmésartan chez les patients hypertendus en soins premiers.

AIMS OF STUDY: Since January 2017, olmesartan-based treatment are no longer reimbursed by French national health insurance. Indeed, enteropathy cases, potentially lethal, were described in relation to this medication. Objectives were to study the impact of stopping the reimbursement of olmesartan for hypertensive patients. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A descriptive retrospective study was performed with data from two primary care facilities in French occidental Normandy. To evaluate the blood pressure control, different blood pressure measurements were considered during the year before (period 1) and the year after (period 2) potential stopping olmesartan. A medico-economic analysis was also realized. RESULTS: From June 2015 to July 2017, 107 hypertensive patients treated by olmesartan were included. Among them, 47 patients (44%) had an antihypertensive monotherapy. olmesartan had been mainly switched by another sartan (75%, 80/107) including valsartan (59%, 47/80). Mean blood pressures during period 1 and period 2 were not statistically different. Moreover, 83% of patients were initially controlled with olmesartan and 81% after switching medication (P=0,86). The use of olmesartan generated an additional cost of 58% compared to the other drugs that replaced it during period 2. CONCLUSIONS: Stopping olmesartan reimbursement didn't seem to have a significant impact on blood pressure control of hypertensive patients while its cost is significant. In addition to potential serious side effects, olmesartan has not shown any improvement in cardiovascular morbi-mortality.

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Third-line treatment options for patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia include tyrosine kinase inhibitors and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The objective of this study was to develop a Markov model with a lifetime time horizon to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for third-line chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) or alloHSCT from the public healthcare system perspective in Germany, Sweden, and Canada. METHODS: Clinical outcomes were derived from the literature, and from patient-level data (phase II PACE trial) for ponatinib. Resource use included drugs, alloHSCT, monitoring and follow-up, adverse events, and end-of-life care; costs were based on national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using chronic myeloid leukemia health-state utilities from an international time-trade-off study. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum for Germany and Sweden, and 5% for Canada. RESULTS: Ponatinib yielded more discounted QALYs than any second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor/alloHSCT in all three countries, mainly owing to better response rates and longer durations of response. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors were US$21,543-37,755/QALY in Germany, $24,018-38,227/QALY in Sweden, and $43,001-58,515/QALY in Canada. Ponatinib was dominant over alloHSCT in Germany, while incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. alloHSCT in Sweden and Canada were $715/QALY and $31,534/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ponatinib may improve outcomes (mainly because of higher response rates and longer response durations) at an acceptable cost level compared with other third-line treatment options for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in Germany, Sweden, and Canada; however, the lack of an indirect comparison is a limitation of our study.

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Custo-utilidade de terapias-alvo comparadas à dacarbazina para o tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não-cirúrgico e metastático no Sistema Único de Saúde do Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of isolated and combined targeted therapy regimens compared to dacarbazine for first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states (no progression, progression and death), monthly duration cycle and 10-year time horizon was constructed to compare targeted therapy regimens (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib and dabrafenib/trametinib) with dacarbazine chemotherapy under the Brazilian public health perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean cost was R$5662.50 ($1490.13) for dacarbazine, R$175 937.18 (46 299.26) for vemurafenib, R$167 461.70 ($44 068.87) for dabrafenib, R$425 901 ($112 079.21) for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and R$411 799.81 ($108 368.37) for dabrafenib/trametinib, whereas QALY was 0.91 for dacarbazine, 1.08 for vemurafenib, 1.12 for dabrafenib, 1.64 for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and 1.56 for dabrafenib/trametinib. The ICUR was estimated from R$572 165.76 ($150 569.94) to R$1 012 524.56 ($266 453.83) per patient, and the most impactful parameters were risk of progression and death, and treatment cost. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of targeted therapies in the Brazilian public health system would produce an additional expenditure of at least 19 times the national GDP per capita to increase in one year the quality-adjusted survival of each patient with advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Was It Worth Introducing Health Economic Evaluation of Innovative Drugs in the French Regulatory Setting? The Case of New Hepatitis C Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: This paper constitutes the first attempt to draw lessons from the recent uptake of health economic evaluation of innovative drugs in the French regulatory framework. STUDY DESIGN: Taking the example of new direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C virus, the paper asks whether and how the cost-effectiveness (CE) opinions issued by the French National Health Authority improve the information available to support the pricing decisions. METHODS: The analysis compares the assessment of these drugs based on three different sources: CE opinions, clinical opinions, and the published cost-utility analyses (CUA) available in the literature and identified through a systematic review. RESULTS: The results show that CE opinions bring to the fore three issues prone to impact the incremental cost utility ratio and those were not available to the decision maker through clinical opinions or published CUA: the stage of treatment initiation, the modeling of the disease progression, and the uncertainty around the efficacy rates. CONCLUSIONS: France has introduced the criterion of the cost per QALY gained in the pricing and regulation of innovative pharmaceuticals since 2013. Our analysis shows that the use of CUA does enhance the information available to the decision makers on the value of the treatments.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Daclatasvir/Sofosbuvir for the treatment of the HCV patients failed after the first line with second generation of DAAs in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Daclatasvir (DCV) combinated with Sofosbuvir (SOF) has shown good efficacy and safety profile for HCV patients. The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DCV/SOF regimen versus HCV alternative treatments for patients who failed to achieve the SVR12 after a first DAA treatment from Italian perspective (PITER cohort). METHODS: A Markov model of HCV chronically infected patients was used to develop two scenarios: 1) DCV+ SOF versus Ledipasvir (LDV)+ SOF in Genotype (Gt)1 and Gt4; 2) DCV+ SOF versus no retreatment option in Gt1, Gt3, and Gt4. The percentage of patients who failed the first line with SOF/Simeprevir/Ribavirin (RBV) or SOF/RBV and were retreated or not according to evidences from PITER cohort, were used to populate the model. HCV resources consumption and SVR rates were quantified using PITER data. Transition probabilities and utility rates were derived from the literature. The outcomes were expressed in terms of Quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of € 30,000/QALY. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, DCV+ SOF represents a cost-effectiveness therapy with ICERs lower than the threshold. The PSA showed robust results, ICERs remain below the threshold in 94% and 99% simulations in Scenario 1 and 2, respectively.

Cost-Effectiveness of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir Versus Daclatasvir Plus Asunaprevir in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1b Infection in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: New direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have high efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) versus daclatasvir plus asunaprevir (DCV + ASV) in Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype (GT) 1b infection stratified by cirrhosis status and treatment history. METHODS: A cohort state-transition model was constructed to simulate the course of chronic HCV infection in patients stratified by cirrhosis status and treatment history. The model projected lifetime outcomes and costs in terms of HCV treatment, laboratory tests, clinical procedures, and hospitalizations. Mean age of the study cohort at baseline was 45 years, based on published sources. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from clinical trials. Healthcare resource utilization and health utilities were extracted or estimated from published studies in Chinese populations. The stability of the base-case analysis was validated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In each subpopulation of Chinese patients, treatment with EBR/GZR dominated treatment with DCV + ASV, with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBR/GZR was the cost-effective option compared to DCV + ASV in 77.4-97.4% or 94.1-100% of model simulations in Chinese treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients, respectively, as the cost-effectiveness threshold changed from zero to US$24,150/QALY (three times GDP per capita in China). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with EBR/GZR was the cost-effective option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b infection in China, regardless of cirrhosis status or treatment history.

Daclatasvir combined with asunaprevir is a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment for hepatitis C infection in China.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimen daclatasvir + asunaprevir (DUAL), versus interferon-based regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection. Methods: Inputs for a lifetime Markov model were sourced from clinical trials and published literature. Outputs include disease management costs, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years and cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses assessed the drivers of cost-effectiveness and sustained virologic response thresholds at which DUAL is cost-saving. Results: DUAL was associated with discounted incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.29-3.85 and incremental life-years of 0.85-2.59 per patient, with discounted lifetime cost savings of USD$1415-8525. Associated sustained virologic response rates could fall to 45.1-84.8%, while remaining dominant. Conclusion: Treatment with DUAL provides significant clinical benefit, while accruing lower lifetime costs.

The repercussion of stopping reimbursement of olmésartan on antihypertensive drugs prescription and blood pressure control of treated hypertensive patients in France.

OBJECTIVE: Since January 2017, olmesartan-based treatments are no longer reimbursed by French health insurance. Health authorities have recommended switch to one of the "many effective, better tolerated and reimbursed alternatives". The objective of this study was to evaluate the consequences on the prescription of antihypertensive drugs in France and to evaluate the blood pressure control of treated hypertensive patients after the switch from olmesartan to another Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). METHODS: To evaluate antihypertensive prescriptions, the French League Against Hypertension Survey (FLAHS) was conducted in 2007, 2012 and 2017 by self-questionnaire sent by mail to a representative panel of the population living in metropolitan France aged 35 years and over. Antihypertensive treatments were grouped by pharmacological class. To evaluate blood pressure control in hypertensive patients treated with olmesartan alone or in combination, 3 home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) were performed. The first and the second were performed without modification of the dose of olmesartan. The third was performed 1 month after the switch to another ARB. RESULTS: Antihypertensive prescriptions changed between 2007 and 2017. Beta-blockers decreased between 2007 and 2012 and then increased slightly. Between 2012 and 2017, ARB and diuretics decreased and ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) and calcium antagonist (CA) drugs increased. Blood pressure control was assessed in 82 hypertensive patients aged 63±11 years treated with olmesartan. The difference in SBP/DBP between the first 2 self-measurements was -0.96/-0.83mmHg. After therapy switch, the 3rd self-measurement showed an increase in SBP/DBP of 3.4/1.2mmHg. In the subgroup of olmesartan-treated controlled hypertensive patients, the switch to another ARB lead to uncontrolled hypertension for 20% of patients with a 12.1mmHg increase in SBP. CONCLUSION: With the halt of reimbursement of olmesartan, there was a decrease in the prescription of ARB in France. When olmersartan was replaced by another ARB, a worse blood pressure control was observed in treated hypertensive patients. The cessation of the reimbursement of olmesartan has had consequences on the treatment of hypertension in France.

Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients in China.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C is the second fastest growing infectious disease in China. The standard-of-care for chronic hepatitis C in China is Pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (PR), which is associated with tolerability and efficacy issues. An interferon- and ribavirin-free, all-oral regimen comprising daclatasvir (DCV) and asunaprevir (ASV), which displays higher efficacy and tolerability, has recently been approved in China. OBJECTIVES: This study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCV+ASV (24 weeks) for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients compared with PR regimen (48 weeks) in China. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed from Chinese payer perspective to project the lifetime outcomes of treating 10,000 patients with an average age of 44.5 with two hypothetical regimens, DCV+ASV and PR. Chinese-specific health state costs and efficacy data were used. The annual discount rate was 5%. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: For HCV Genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients, DCV+ASV proved to be dominant over PR, with a cost saving of ¥33,480(5,096 USD) and gains in QALYs and life years of 1.29 and 0.85, respectively. The lifetime risk of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death was greatly reduced with DCV+ASV. Univariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that key influencers were the discount rate, time horizon, initial disease severity and sustained virological response rate of DCV+ASV, with all scenarios resulting in additional benefit. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that DCV+ASV has a high likelihood (100%) of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: DCV+ASV is not only an effective and well-tolerated regimen to treat chronic HCV genotype 1b infection treatment-naïve patients, but also is more cost-effective than PR regimen. DCV+ASV can benefit both the public health and reimbursement system in China.

Economic evaluation of Zepatier for the management of HCV in the Italian scenario.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major health issue worldwide. New generation of direct-active antiviral medications is an epoch-making turning point in the management of HCV infections. OBJECTIVE: Conducing a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin for the management of all HCV patients (even those in the initial stages of fibrosis). METHODS: A Markov model was built on the natural history of the disease to assess the efficacy of the alternatives. The outcomes are expressed in terms of quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and result in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). RESULTS: Elbasvir/grazoprevir implies an expenditure of €21,104,253.74 with a gain of 19,287.90 QALYs and sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin implies an expenditure of €31,904,410.11 with a gain of 18,855.96 QALYs. Elbasvir/grazoprevir is thus a dominant strategy. CONCLUSION: Consideration should be given to the opportunity cost of not treating patients with a lower degree of fibrosis (F0-F2).

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.