RESUMEN
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia encountered in the emergency department (ED) and when patients present in acute AF with rapid ventricular rate (RVR), it can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Primary treatment modalities are aimed at rate control with the two most common agents being intravenous metoprolol and diltiazem. Some evidence suggests that diltiazem may be more effective at controlling rate in these patients; however, the dosing strategies, pharmacologic differences, and study designs may play a role in the observation of these differences. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence for using weight-based metoprolol in the treatment of AF with RVR. The vast majority of studies comparing metoprolol and diltiazem for the treatment of acute AF with RVR compare a flat dose of metoprolol to a weight-based dose of diltiazem. Following a comprehensive review, only two studies have compared a weight-based dosing strategy of intravenous (IV) metoprolol versus IV diltiazem for this disease state. Overall, the two studies only contained 94 patients and failed to meet power. Beyond differing dosing strategies, differences in pharmacokinetics between the two medications (like the onset of action and metabolism) could have played a role in the differences observed in the studies. Further studies are warranted to provide better guidance on which agent should be used in the treatment of acute AF with RVR.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer in women in the United States. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant combination therapy gained US Food and Drug Administration approval to treat postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer in 2018. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant therapy in the target population from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival analysis model composed of 3 health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death) was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant. The progression-free survival and the overall survival data points were extracted from published Kaplan-Meier curves in the MONALEESA-3 study and fitted to parametric curves. The safety and efficacy of the treatment was referenced from the MONALEESA-3 trial. Costs were obtained from standard sources including the Red Book for medication costs, Medicare Clinical Laboratory/Physician Fee Schedule for clinical utilization, and the literature for costs of managing adverse events, subsequent therapy, and end-of-life care. Utility and disutility values were obtained from literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness. Several scenario analyses were also investigated. RESULTS: In the base case, the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm was associated with $522,844 and 3.25 QALYs compared with $50,395 and 2.14 QALYs in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $425,951/QALY. The cost of ribociclib had the biggest impact on the model and constituted 84% of the total cost for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis projected that the ribociclib plus fulvestrant treatment would have a net benefit over the placebo plus fulvestrant therapy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $405,600/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the addition of ribociclib to fulvestrant is not considered to be cost-effective in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The findings send a strong price signal to the manufacturer and can be used to facilitate payers with price negotiation in making coverage decisions.
