Improving the understanding of how patients with non-dystrophic myotonia are selected for myotonia treatment with mexiletine (NaMuscla): outcomes of treatment impact using a European Delphi panel.

BACKGROUND: Non-dystrophic myotonias (NDMs) comprise muscle chloride and sodium channelopathies due to genetic defects of the CLCN1- and SCN4A-channels. No licensed antimyotonic treatment has been available until approval of mexiletine (NaMuscla®) for adult patients by the EMA in December 2018. This Delphi panel aimed to understand how outcomes of the pivotal phase III Mexiletine study (MYOMEX) translate to real world practice and investigate health resource use, quality of life and the natural history of NDM to support economic modelling and facilitate patient access. METHODS: Nine clinical experts in treating NDM took part in a two-round Delphi panel. Their knowledge of NDM and previous use of mexiletine as an off-label treatment prior to NaMuscla's approval ensured they could provide both qualitative context and quantitative estimates to support economic modelling comparing mexiletine (NaMuscla) to best supportive care. Consensus in four key areas was sought: healthcare resource utilization (HRU), treatment with mexiletine (NaMuscla), patient quality of life (QoL), and the natural history of disease. Concept questions were also asked, considering perceptions on the feasibility of mapping the validated Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) instrument to the generic EQ-5D™, and the potential impact on caregiver QoL. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for key questions including the average long-term dosage of mexiletine (NaMuscla) in practice, the criteria for eligibility of myotonia treatment, the clinical importance of QoL outcomes in MYOMEX, the higher proportion of patients with increased QoL, and the reduction in the need for mental health resources for patients receiving mexiletine (NaMuscla). While consensus was not achieved for other questions, the results demonstrated that most experts felt mexiletine (NaMuscla) reduced the need for HRU and was expected to improve QoL. The QoL mapping exercise suggested that it is feasible to map domains of INQoL to EQ-5D. Points of interest for future research were identified, including that mexiletine (NaMuscla) may slow the annual decrease in QoL of patients over their lifetime, and a significant negative impact on QoL for some caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: This project successfully provided data from an informed group of clinical experts, complementing the currently available clinical trial data for mexiletine (NaMuscla) to support patient access decisions.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.