Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

Efficacy and economic analysis of two treatment regimens using toltrazuril in lambs naturally infected with Eimeria spp. on pasture.

This study evaluated the efficacy and the economic viability of two anticoccidial treatment regimens tested in lambs naturally exposed to Eimeria spp. re-infections in a grazing system during a 140-day period. Twenty-four suckling lambs were distributed into three groups based on the individual count of oocysts per gram of feces (OPG) and body weight. Animals were treated with toltrazuril 5% (20 mg/kg) at 14- (GI) or 21-day (GII) intervals, and GIII was kept as untreated control. A cost-benefit analysis of each treatment regimen was calculated. Additionally, economic analysis was performed on four hypothetical scenarios, in which lambs could be having 10, 25, 50, or 85% decrease in their expected body weight gain due to clinical. Efficacy of toltrazuril against Eimeria spp. was 96.9-99.9% (GI) and 74.2-99.9% (GII). E. ovinoidalis was most frequently identified, but no clinical signs of coccidiosis were observed in lambs. There were no differences in weight gain among the groups. The cost of treatment per lamb was $13.09 (GI) and $7.83 (GII). The estimation model showed that the cost-benefit ratio favored treatment with toltrazuril when lambs fail to gain weight. In the studied flock, the break-even point for toltrazuril administered at 14-day intervals was reached with 85% decrease in mean weight gain. In conclusion, toltrazuril can be used at 14-day intervals to control Eimeria spp. (re)-infection in lambs raised on pasture. This treatment regimen was not economically feasible for subclinical coccidiosis; however, it may be feasible when used to prevent weight loss caused by clinical coccidiosis.

Bioequivalence Between Generic and Branded Lamotrigine in People With Epilepsy: The EQUIGEN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Switching between generic antiepileptic drugs is a highly debated issue that affects both clinical care and overall health care costs. Objective: To evaluate the single-dose pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of 3 (1 branded and 2 generic drugs) on-market, immediate-release lamotrigine drug products. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Equivalence Among Antiepileptic Drug Generic and Brand Products in People With Epilepsy (EQUIGEN) single-dose study is a crossover, prospective, sequence-randomized, replicate pharmacokinetic study conducted at 5 US academic epilepsy centers. Fifty adults (≥18 years) with epilepsy who were taking concomitant antiepileptic drugs and not currently receiving lamotrigine were enrolled between July 18, 2013, and January 19, 2015. Every participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 3 equivalent sequences, each comprising 6 study periods, during which they had blood draws before and after medication administration. Forty-nine participants were included in intention-to-treat analyses. Interventions: Participants received a single 25-mg dose of immediate-release lamotrigine at the start of each period, with the branded and the 2 most disparate generic products each studied twice. Lamotrigine was selected as the antiepileptic drug of interest because of its wide use, publications indicating problems with generic switches, and complaints to the US Food and Drug Administration regarding generic products. Both participants and study personnel were blinded to the specific generic products selected. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was bioequivalence between products. Maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were compared, and average bioequivalence (ABE) was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of the 2 products were within equivalence limits (80%-125%). Results: Of the 50 randomized participants, 49 (98%) received all 3 lamotrigine products and completed at least 3 pharmacokinetic assessments and 46 (92%) completed all 6 pharmacokinetic assessments. Among the 49 participants, 28 (57%) were men and 21 (43%) were women, 42 (86%) self-identified as white, and 46 (16) years was the mean (SD) age. The 3 drug products were considered bioequivalent because the 90% CIs were within equivalence limits (lowest and highest CI limits for Cmax, 92.6% and 110.4%; for AUC0-96, 96.9% and 101.9%). Replicate testing demonstrated no significant differences in within-subject variability across the 3 products (likelihood ratios, χ22 for log-transformed variables: AUC0-96, 2.58; Cmax, 0.64; and AUC0-∞, 4.05; P ≥ .13) and that the 3 products were also bioequivalent according to scaled ABE and individual bioequivalence criteria with no subject × formulation interaction (Cmax, 0.00; AUC0-96, 0.54; and AUC0-∞, 0.36; P ≥ .76). Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides evidence that the disparate lamotrigine products studied are bioequivalent when tested in people with epilepsy taking concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01733394.

Lamotrigine versus inert placebo in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) experience rapid and distressing changes in mood, poor social functioning and have high rates of suicidal behaviour. Several small scale studies suggest that mood stabilizers may produce short-term reductions in symptoms of BPD, but have not been large enough to fully examine clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: A two parallel-arm, placebo controlled randomized trial of usual care plus either lamotrigine or an inert placebo for people aged over 18 who are using mental health services and meet diagnostic criteria for BPD. We will exclude people with comorbid bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, those who speak insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who are pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. Those meeting inclusion criteria and provide written informed consent will be randomized to up to 200mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo (up to 400mg if taking combined oral contraceptives). Participants will be randomized via a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre, severity of personality disorder, and level of bipolarity. Follow-up assessments will be conducted by masked researchers 12, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome is the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD). The secondary outcomes are depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, adverse events and withdrawal of trial medication due to adverse effects. The main analyses will use intention to treat without imputation of missing data. The economic evaluation will take an NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. A cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. DISCUSSION: The evidence base for the use of pharmacological treatments for people with borderline personality disorder is poor. In this trial we will examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine to assess what if any impact offering this has on peoples' mental health, social functioning, and use of other medication and other resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90916365 (registered 01/08/2012).

The impact on health outcomes and healthcare utilisation of switching to generic medicines consequent to reference pricing: the case of lamotrigine in New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have implemented generic reference pricing and substitution as methods of containing pharmaceutical expenditure. However, resistance to switching between medicines is apparent, especially in the case of anti-epileptic medicines. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to exploit a nation-wide policy intervention on generic reference pricing in New Zealand to evaluate the health outcomes of patients switching from originator to generic lamotrigine, an anti-epileptic medicine. METHODS: A retrospective study using the national health collections and prescription records was conducted comparing patients who switched from originator brand to generic lamotrigine with patients who remained on the originator brand. Primary outcome measures included switch behaviour, changes in utilisation of healthcare services at emergency departments, hospitalisations and use of specialist services, and mortality. RESULTS: Approximately one-quarter of all patients using the originator brand of lamotrigine switched to generic lamotrigine, half of whom made the switch within 60 days of the policy implementation. Multiple switches (three or more) between generic and brand products were evident for around 10% of switchers. Switch-back rates of 3% were apparent within 30 days post-switch. No difference in heath outcome measures was associated with switching from originator lamotrigine to a generic equivalent and hence no increased costs could be found for switchers. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from brand to generic lamotrigine is largely devoid of adverse health outcomes; however, creating an incentive to ensure a greater proportion of patients switch to generic lamotrigine is required to achieve maximal financial savings from a policy of generic reference pricing.

Management of ED under the "severe distress" criteria in the NHS: a real-life study.

INTRODUCTION: The United Kingdom is unusual in that a significant proportion of patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) have their treatment fully reimbursed by the National Health Service (NHS). This may have consequences for the choice of treatment and for compliance with treatment. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and cost implications of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor in an NHS setting. METHODS: Basic demographics and data on ED management for patients treated from January 2000 to April 2011 were obtained from a prospectively accrued database. We reviewed drug usage and costs as well as switching between drugs. Patients were given the choice of all available therapies and were followed up annually. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Switching, compliance, and costs of treating ED under the "severe distress" criteria in the NHS were reviewed for this study. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred fifty-nine patients qualified for reimbursed therapy. Two hundred twenty-six patients were excluded from further analysis owing to missing data. Patients were followed up on an annual basis. The mean patient age was 60.2 years (min 23, max 90), and the mean follow-up was 50.8 months (min 1, max 127). Six hundred ninety-six were started on sildenafil, 990 on tadalafil, 163 on vardenafil, and 84 on intracavernosal alprostadil. Eighteen percent of patients initially started on the scheme and stopped medication unilaterally. Of the patients, 12.3% changed their medication during follow-up. The cost of drugs increased year by year from £257,100 in 2007 to £352,519 in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-life observational study shows that in our institution, dropout of therapy is unusual. We hypothesize that this reflects, in part, the reimbursement issue. We also found that switching between drugs was unusual, although there are several possible explanations for that. Although this is a successful system for the patients, the hospital, which bears the costs of medication, is finding this an increasing economic drain.

Prevalence, utilization, and costs of antiepileptic drugs for epilepsy in Germany--a nationwide population-based study in children and adults.

Nationwide analyses of drug use can provide a prevalence estimate of the underlying disease and can help in understanding the characteristics of treatment. This study aimed for such analyses regarding the utilization of antiepileptic drugs (AED) for epilepsy in Germany. In 2009, all 4,115,705 AED prescriptions of all German patients with statutory health insurance (70,011,508 persons) were retrospectively analyzed. The IMS(®) LRx database served as data source, which accesses nationwide pharmacy data centers processing all German prescription data. To establish the age and sex-specific percentage of patients taking AED because of epilepsy, we used a second database, Disease Analyzer(®), which covered a representative sample of the German population (7.2 million patients) and contained ICD10 codes alongside with prescription data. The period prevalence of patients taking AED because of epilepsy was 9.1/1,000 (children/adolescents: 5.2/1,000; elderly: 12.5/1,000). Of the patients, 83.1 % took at least one of four AED: valproate (29.8 %), carbamazepine (26.4 %), lamotrigine (21.4 %), and levetiracetam (16.9 %). Oxcarbazepine and sultiame were popular with pediatricians. Elderly patients frequently received phenytoin and primidone. More than half of the patients were treated by family physicians; 68 % took AED in monotherapy and 7.9 % received >2 AED (children/adolescents: 12.5 %). The costs for AED prescribed for epilepsy amounted to €285.1 Mio (median AED costs/patient: €158/a). The German 2009 prevalence of epileptic patients taking AED was 9.1/1,000. Family physicians cared for the majority of patients. Prevalence and prescribing patterns changed with age. Costs of AED against epilepsy added up to 1 % of total medication costs in Germany.

Economic evaluation of anti-epileptic drug therapies with specific focus on teratogenic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Anti-epileptic drugs are known to be teratogenic, yet many women do need to continue the anti-epileptic drug use during pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To perform an economic evaluation of the anti-epileptic drug choice in young women who potentially wish to become pregnant. In particular, to estimate the impact of teratogenicity on the costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY). METHODS: A decision-tree model is used to calculate the costs per QALY, taking into account the malformation risk in offspring due to the exposure to carbamazepine, lamotrigine or valproic acid, based on the European birth cohort of 2007. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Valproic acid is dominated by carbamazepine after rank ordering on costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine vs carbamazepine was estimated at €175,534 per QALY. Although valproic acid was dominated by carbamazepine in terms of costs and related effects, it is clinically relevant to compare lamotrigine with valproic acid. In particular, treatment options are dependent on several individual and clinical characteristics and these agents are therefore not always considered as interchangeable for all specified populations. The incremental cost-effectiveness for lamotrigine vs valproic acid was estimated at €13,370 per QALY. With assuming a willingness to pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY, results from the probabilistic analysis resulted in an acceptance level for lamotrigine vs carbamazepine and lamotrigine vs valproic acid of 4% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on epidemiological data it is advised to whenever possible avoid valproic acid during pregnancy. Both carbamazepine and lamotrigine are estimated to be cost-effective treatment options vs valproic acid if focused on teratogenicity.

Influence of toltrazuril treatment on parasitological parameters and health performance of piglets in the field--an Austrian experience.

Porcine coccidiosis caused by Isospora suis is one of the leading causes of neonatal diarrhea in suckling piglets. Currently the only registered drug for metaphylaxis is toltrazuril. To evaluate the effect of treatment on piglets from 7 Austrian farms without and 8 Austrian farms with toltrazuril application we examined oocyst excretion (including determination of oocysts per gram of feces; OPG), diarrhea (fecal score FS 1-4 with 3 and 4 being diarrhea), and general health (health score HS 1-4 with 3 and 4 describing poor health). Both groups included farms with different levels of hygiene. Samples from 265 litters without treatment, comprising 1588 individual samples, and 1548 samples from 258 treated litters were taken twice (around the 14th and the 21st day of life, respectively), examined by autofluorescence and, if positive, by McMaster counting. In both groups animals had less diarrhea and lower health scores during the second sampling but the treated piglets were always significantly healthier and had less diarrhea. The percentage of weaned piglets was higher in treated animals although this was not significant (p=0.052). In the first round of sampling 17.8% of the individual samples from untreated piglets were positive for oocysts (with a maximum prevalence on the 12-15th day of life) while in the treated piglets only 0.4% shed oocysts p<0.001). At the second sampling only 2.1% of the untreated animals and none of treated piglets excreted I. suis (p=0.083). Positive animals shed up to 8 × 10(3)OPG. There was an increased risk for infected piglets to develop diarrhea (odds ratio, OR 4.73) and poor health (OR 5.05) in untreated piglets, and poor hygiene without disinfection was identified as a risk factor for poor health (OR 1.90), diarrhea (OR 1.42) and oocyst excretion (OR 1.73). The risk of poor health (OR 2.89) and diarrhea (OR 1.44) was also increased for piglets under poor hygienic conditions receiving toltrazuril, so both metaphylaxis of coccidiosis and good hygiene are necessary to effectively control neonatal diarrhea. The costs of treatment are considerably lower than the estimated financial production losses. Therefore, treatment is recommended for farms where clinical coccidiosis is diagnosed.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of various monthly doses of vardenafil.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of four, six, and eight doses per month of vardenafil in the context of pharmacy benefit decision making. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of zero, four, six, or eight doses of vardenafil per month in hypothetical cohorts of 60-year-old male veterans with erectile dysfunction. Efficacy values for vardenafil were obtained from the literature, and vardenafil costs were obtained from Veterans Affairs pharmacy data. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective with a lifetime horizon, and the effect of parameter uncertainty was explored in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained for four doses of vardenafil per month compared with no therapy was $576. Six doses per month compared with four cost $2585/quality-adjusted life-year gained, and eight doses per month compared with six cost $5169/quality-adjusted life-year gained. In one-way sensitivity analyses of six doses per month compared with four, variation of two parameters caused the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to cross a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000: when the increased utility associated with giving two additional doses/month was less than 0.001 (baseline 0.01) and when the cost per dose increased to $15.00 (baseline $1.69). CONCLUSION: Although four doses per month of vardenafil was the most cost-effective strategy, the use of six or eight doses per month also compares favorably with other accepted medical treatments. The results were stable across a range of inputs and help to support the current Veterans Affairs policy on the number of vardenafil doses provided per month for erectile dysfunction.

[Interchangeability among therapeutics equivalents of lamotrigine in the treatment of refractory epilepsy patients: risks and benefits]. / Intercambiabilidad entre equivalentes terapéuticos de lamotrigina en pacientes con epilepsia refractaria: riesgos y beneficios.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a condition characterized by signs and symptoms of neurological disorder. Lamotrigine has been widely used, mainly due to their greater tolerability and lower rate of drug interactions with other antiepileptic drugs however the newest antiepileptic drugs have high cost to patient. In Brazil there are three different sort of pharmaceutical equivalents (reference, generic and similar), and the Brazilian health care authorities offers to users the possibility to receive them free of charge. Moreover these pharmaceutical equivalents can change during the treatment of epilepsy because this authorities buy the cheapest by public tender two or three times a year. AIM: To evaluate the clinical and laboratory findings related to the most frequently used therapeutic equivalents of lamotrigine (reference drugs and similar products). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two similar formulations (A and B) and one reference (C) were tested in nine epileptic refractory patients. The study was divided into three periods of 42 days, one for each formulation, and medical data about the frequency of seizures, the occurrence of side effects and measurement of plasma concentrations of lamotrigine were collected. RESULTS: The average number of seizures/week and plasma concentration of lamotrigine for formulations A, B and C were not statistically significant differences. Three patients during the use of the formulation C presented mild and transitory side effects. CONCLUSION: Similar or reference drugs showed satisfactory results, however the interchangeability among the formulations raise the difficulty for the management of seizures in refractory epilepsy.

Cost effectiveness of adjunctive quetiapine fumarate extended-release tablets with mood stabilizers in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar I disorder (BPD I) is a recurrent illness that affects 1% of the US population and constitutes a large economic burden. However, few studies have investigated the cost effectiveness of maintenance treatment options for BPD I. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of maintenance treatment with quetiapine fumarate extended-release (XR) tablets in combination with mood stabilizers (lithium or divalproex) in comparison with the following treatments: placebo in combination with lithium or divalproex; no maintenance treatment; lithium monotherapy; lamotrigine monotherapy; olanzapine monotherapy; and aripiprazole monotherapy. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the societal and payer perspectives in the US, using a Markov model. The model simulated a cohort of 1000 stabilized BPD I patients and estimated the quarterly risk in three health states: euthymia, mania and depression. Efficacy data were derived from two randomized, double-blind trials comparing quetiapine + lithium/divalproex with placebo + lithium/divalproex for up to 2 years, as well as other published literature. Resource data were extracted from published literature. Drug costs, hospitalizations and physician visits were among the direct costs. Indirect costs included absenteeism, and mortality rates included suicide. Benefits and costs were discounted at 3% and the price reference year was 2009. Endpoints included number of acute mood episodes, hospitalizations due to an acute mood event and costs per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to evaluate uncertainty in the model inputs. RESULTS: Treatment with quetiapine XR + lithium/divalproex was associated with reductions in acute mania (46%), acute depression (41%) and related hospitalizations (44%) compared with placebo + lithium/divalproex, and similar reductions in events were observed relative to lithium monotherapy. In the base-case analysis from the payer perspective, the discounted incremental cost per QALY for quetiapine XR + lithium/divalproex compared with placebo + lithium/divalproex was $US22 959, and compared with lithium monotherapy was $US100 235, while all other comparators were dominated. PSA showed these results to be robust to select assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine XR + lithium/divalproex may be a cost-effective maintenance treatment option for patients with BPD I.

The cost effectiveness of rufinamide in the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome in the UK.

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a catastrophic childhood form of epilepsy. The syndrome is characterized by mental impairment, frequent seizures of multiple types that are particularly resistant to treatment, and high rates of seizure-related injury. With the introduction of newer, but more costly, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), it is important that decision makers are able to assess their value in the management of this rare and difficult-to-treat condition. To evaluate the cost effectiveness, from the UK NHS perspective, of rufinamide in patients with LGS. An individual patient-simulation model was developed to estimate the total treatment-related costs and clinical benefits of rufinamide compared with topiramate and lamotrigine over a 3-year time horizon. The model examines the treatment scenarios of adding rufinamide, lamotrigine or topiramate to older AEDs (standard therapy), or standard therapy alone within a primary-care or community setting. Three placebo-controlled clinical trials of adjunctive AED treatment for children with LGS were analysed. There are no head-to-head comparator studies. Between 98 and 139 patients were randomized in each study and the mean age in each study was 10, 11 and 14 years. A mixed-treatment comparison using a random-effects model was carried out on the number of patients in each response category, using the placebo arms of the respective trials. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of successfully treated patients, defined as >50% reduction in the frequency of total seizures and drop attacks. The hypothesis being tested was formulated after data collection. Costs ( pound, year 2006/07 values) of patient monitoring, switching treatments, hospitalization due to seizure, treatment of adverse effects, and personal and social services were included in the analysis. Results of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were bootstrapped to conduct probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Over 3 years, adjunctive rufinamide resulted in higher total costs than topiramate and lamotrigine; however, with more patients being treated successfully, this leads to acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. If society is prepared to pay at least 250 pounds for a 1% increase in the number of successfully treated LGS patients, in terms of a 50% reduction in the frequency of drop attacks, the probability of the treatment with rufinamide being cost effective is >80%. This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that rufinamide results in more LGS patients being treated successfully at a reasonable cost from a UK NHS perspective.

Cost-utility analysis of rufinamide versus topiramate and lamotrigine for the treatment of children with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rufinamide relative to topiramate and lamotrigine as adjunctive treatment for children with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS). METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over a three-year time horizon in patients with LGS uncontrolled by up to three antiepileptic drugs. Utilities were assigned to health states, defined according to a patient's response to treatment (> or =75%, > or =50% and <75%, and <50% reduction in tonic-atonic [drop attack] seizure frequency and death). Efficacy and safety estimates were made using indirect/mixed-treatment comparisons of data obtained from published literature. Outcomes included costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), allowing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be estimated as cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Over three years, the total cumulative costs for rufinamide, topiramate, and lamotrigine were pound24,992, pound23,360, and pound21,783, respectively. Rufinamide resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.079 relative to topiramate and 0.021 relative to lamotrigine. The incremental costs of rufinamide were pound1632 and pound3209, relative to topiramate and lamotrigine, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of pound20,538 and pound154,831, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the underlying assumptions, this current economic evaluation demonstrates that rufinamide is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to topiramate as adjunctive treatment for children with LGS in the UK. In addition, when compared to lamotrigine, which is an inexpensive treatment, rufinamide should be considered as a cost-effective alternative due to the importance of patient choice and equity of access in such a rare and devastating condition.

Toltrazuril and sulphonamide treatment against naturally Isospora suis infected suckling piglets: is there an actual profit?

A study was carried out to assess the efficacy and the economic profit of prophylactic treatment against Isopsora suis with toltrazuril or with a sulfamethazine/trimethoprim combination in piglets from an intensive pig farm. Thirty-one litters were included in study. Eight litters were treated once with toltrazuril (20 mg/kg b.w.) at 3 days of age (Toltra group); 8 litters were treated with 2 ml/animal of a [corrected] sulphonamide combination (sodium sulfamethazine 250 [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] mg and trimethoprim 50 [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] mg/kg b.w.) for 3 consecutive days starting at 3 days of age (Sulfa group), and 15 litters were untreated (control group). Counts of oocyst per gram on pooled feces sampled from each litter were carried out on Days 7, 14, 21 and 28 and diarrhea was registered daily from pooled samples. Piglets were weighed on Days 1, 7 and 28 and mean weight gain (WG) and daily weight gain (DWG) were evaluated. The economic profit of treatment was evaluated comparing the WG of piglets of each treatment group from the day of birth to Day 28. On Days 14, 21 and 28, toltrazuril showed a better efficacy in controlling fecal oocyst output, diarrhea and weight gain compared with sulphamidic treatment (P<0.001). The budgeting analysis showed a return of economic benefit of euro 0.915 per toltrazuril-treated piglets and an additional cost of euro 1.155 per sulphonamide-treated piglets.