Long-term outcomes of patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria treated with eculizumab in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the real-world clinical profile of eculizumab-treated patients by characterizing their short- and long-term clinical and laboratory outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study used preexisting medical records of eculizumab-treated patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) at the University Hospital Essen. Hematologic response, breakthrough hemolysis, transfusion dependence, and other outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 85 patients with PNH, 76 received eculizumab for ≥24 weeks (mean follow-up: 5.59 years; total: 425 person-years). At 24 weeks (n = 57 patients with data), 7% and 9% had complete and major hematologic response, respectively. Breakthrough hemolysis occurred in 8%, and 38% required a blood transfusion. Over long-term follow-up (25-264 weeks), 70%-82% of patients did not achieve complete or major hematologic response in any 24-week period. Breakthrough symptoms, breakthrough hemolysis, and transfusion dependence occurred in 63%, 43%, and 63% of patients, respectively, at any point during follow-up. The majority (79%-89%) of patients did not achieve normalized hemoglobin, with 76%-93% having elevated bilirubin or absolute reticulocyte count in any 24-week window. Mean percentage reduction in lactate dehydrogenase (baseline to end of follow-up) was 80.3% (95% CI, 64.0-96.6). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of patients with PNH receiving eculizumab did not achieve optimal clinical outcomes and had an ongoing disease burden.

A phase-II study of atezolizumab in combination with obinutuzumab or rituximab for relapsed or refractory mantle cell or marginal zone lymphoma or Waldenström's macroglobulinemia.

We report efficacy, safety and biomarker data from a phase-II study evaluating atezolizumab (eight 21-day cycle as induction therapy) in combination with obinutuzumab in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL, n = 30) or Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM, n = 4), and in combination with rituximab in patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL, n = 21). All patients received atezolizumab monotherapy as maintenance for ≤10 cycles. Objective response rates at end of induction were 16.7% (MCL) and 42.9% (MZL), with no responses in WM. Median duration of response was 6.8 months (range 5.7-not estimable) for MCL and not reached for MZL. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 93.3%, 95.2% and 100% of MCL, MZL and WM patients, respectively. One fatal TEAE (pneumonia) occurred in each of the MCL and MZL groups. Biomarker analysis highlighted the importance of characterizing the immune environment to optimize efficacy of immunotherapy regimens.Trial registration details: EudraCT: 2016-003579-22.

Characteristics, resource utilization and safety profile of patients prescribed with neuropathic pain treatments: a real-world evidence study on general practices in Europe - the role of the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster.

OBJECTIVES: To identify characteristics, resource utilization, and safety profile of patients prescribed with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, pregabalin, gabapentin, amitriptyline and duloxetine when experiencing pain in the real-world setting of general practitioners (GPs) in Europe. METHODS: Retrospective analysis on real world data from IMS Health Longitudinal Patient Database. Patients with at least one prescription of the drugs of interest during 2014 were selected and those with a non-neuropathic pain-related diagnosis were excluded. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, resource utilization data and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as described in the leaflet were extracted. The association between treatments and ADR occurrence was evaluated applying multivariate logistic models. RESULTS: A total of 70,515 patients were selected from Italy, Germany, the UK, Spain and Belgium. Lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients were the oldest in Italy, the UK and Spain and the most health impaired in Italy, Spain and Belgium. No relevant differences in the number of co-prescriptions, specialist visits, examinations and hospitalizations were found. Significantly less lidocaine 5% plasters patients experienced ADRs, with odds ratios in favor of lidocaine 5% medicated plasters ranging from 3.41 (p = .036) to 52.33 (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from daily clinical practice in GP settings agrees with the findings from more controlled clinical-trial settings, with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster patients showing a better safety profile, but also a comparable level of resource utilization. A possible re-evaluation of the scientific value coming from this retrospective study in building up a diagnostic as well as a therapeutic algorithm is suggested.

Indirect treatment comparison of two non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia treatments for acute post-operative pain management.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with two non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) treatments, sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and fentanyl iontophoretic patient-controlled transdermal system (PCTS). These two treatments have recently been approved in the EU for the management of acute moderate-to-severe post-operative pain in adult patients. METHODS: As no head-to-head trials comparing SSTS and PCTS currently exist, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analyses were conducted to evaluate SSTS or PCTS versus intravenous (IV) morphine PCA. RESULTS: Five studies, four assessing PCTS and one assessing SSTS, were included in this analysis. SSTS had statistical or numerical advantages over PCTS for both patient global assessment (PGA) and healthcare professional global assessment (HPGA) outcomes at all time points investigated. SSTS was also associated with greater patient ease of use (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.02-0.28) and a higher patient satisfaction score (WMD: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57; p = .019) compared with PCTS. In terms of tolerability, all-cause withdrawals from treatment were reported to be less likely with SSTS (risk ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42-1.02). No significant differences were observed between SSTS and PCTS in terms of safety and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct head-to-head data, the combination of promising phase III trial results compared to IV morphine PCA, a SLR comparison against other opioid treatments, and the results of this exploratory analysis present a strong rationale in support of SSTS as a key option for management of post-operative pain.

Sublingual, transdermal and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for acute post-operative pain: systematic literature review and mixed treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and quantitative analysis to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) against other available patient controlled analgesia (PCA) options for post-operative analgesia. METHODS: An SLR was conducted for studies published between 2004 and 2016. Due to study heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were conducted controlling for differences in imputation methods for missing values, baseline pain severity, and type of surgery. Where sufficient data was available, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was performed. RESULTS: The MTC and subgroup analyses used 13 studies. In direct meta-analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of SSTS compared with intravenous (IV) PCA (morphine) at 24 hours for the patient global assessment (PGA) scores of "good" or "excellent". For the Pain Intensity Score, there were numerical but not statistically significant differences in favor of the SSTS versus IV PCA (morphine) and the patient controlled transdermal system (PCTS) (fentanyl) in the MTC at 6 hours (standardized mean difference -0.27 [credible interval -2.78, 2.09] and -0.36 [-3.89, 3.03], respectively). The onset of pain relief was earlier with the SSTS versus IV PCA (morphine) as shown by the Pain Intensity Difference. Likewise, the onset was earlier compared with PCTS (fentanyl) where data was available. There was a significant difference in favor of SSTS compared with IV PCA (morphine) and with PCTS (fentanyl) for any adverse event, and numerical improvements for withdrawals due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that SSTS is an option for non-invasive management of moderate-to-severe post-operative pain which can be more effective, faster in onset and better tolerated than IV PCA (morphine) and PCTS (fentanyl).

C-QUALITY: cost and quality-of-life pharmacoeconomic analysis of antidepressants used in major depressive disorder in the regional Italian settings of Veneto and Sardinia.

BACKGROUND: Major depression is a commonly occurring, seriously impairing, and often recurrent mental disorder. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are the treatments most commonly used for major depressive disorder. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SSRIs and SNRIs in the treatment of major depressive disorder in two Italian regional settings, ie, Veneto and Sardinia. METHODS: A decision analytic model was adapted from the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency to reflect current clinical practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the most significant Italian regions. This adaptation was possible as a result of collaboration with an expert panel of Italian psychiatrists and health economists. The population comprised patients with a first diagnosis of major depressive disorder and initiating one SSRI or SNRI drug for the first time. The time frame used was 12 months. Efficacy and utility data for the model were retrieved from the literature and validated by the expert panel. Local data were used for resource utilization and for treatment costs based on the perspective of each regional health service. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Base case analysis showed that escitalopram is associated with the largest health gain (in quality-adjusted life years) and a lower total cost at one year for Sardinia (except for sertraline, against which it was cost-effective) and for Veneto, and therefore dominates the other treatment strategies, given that more quality-adjusted life years are achieved at a lower total cost. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses support the robustness of the model. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that escitalopram is the most cost-effective pharmacologic treatment strategy for both regional health services compared with all SSRIs and all SNRIs used in the first-line treatment of major depressive disorder.

C-QUALITY: cost and quality-of-life pharmacoeconomic analysis of antidepressants in major depressive disorder in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and disabling condition across the world. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are the most commonly used antidepressants. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness [€ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)] of all SSRIs and all SNRIs for the treatment of MDD in Italy. METHODS: A decision analytic model was adapted from the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits agency model to reflect current clinical practice in the treatment of MDD in the largest Italian regions. This adaptation was possible thanks to the collaboration of an expert panel of Italian psychiatrists and health economists. The model evaluated patients with a first diagnosis of MDD and initiating an SSRI or an SNRI for the first time. The time horizon was 12 months. Efficacy and utility data for the model were retrieved from the literature and validated by the expert panel. Local data were considered for resource utilization and for treatment costs based on each regional health service perspective. Population-weighted regional data were used to define a national model. Scenario simulations, one-way sensitivity analyses, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that escitalopram was associated with a lower total cost (€ 1,562) and a larger health gain (QALYs) at 1 year (0.732) per patient and dominated the other treatment strategies since more QALYs were achieved at a lower total cost. Sensitivity analyses support the robustness of the model. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that escitalopram is the most cost-effective pharmacological treatment strategy for the Italian health service compared with other SSRIs and all SNRIs used in the first-line treatment of MDD.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of escitalopram in major depressive disorder in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Depression has a lifetime prevalence of 10%-25% among women and 5%-12% among men. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most used and the most cost-effective treatment for long-term major depressive disorder. Since the introduction of generic SSRIs, the costs of branded drugs have been questioned. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness (€ per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of escitalopram (which is still covered by a patent) compared with paroxetine, sertraline, and citalopram, the patents for which have expired. METHODS: A decision analytic model was adapted from the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical benefits agency model to reflect current clinical practice in the treatment of depression in Italy in collaboration with an expert panel of Italian psychiatrists and health economists. The population comprised patients with a first diagnosis of major depressive disorder and receiving for the first time one of the following SSRIs: escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, and citalopram. The time frame used was 12 months. Efficacy and utility data for the original model were validated by our expert panel. Local data were considered for resource utilization and for treatment costs based on the Lombardy region health service perspective. Several scenario simulations, oneway sensitivity analyses, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The base case scenario showed that escitalopram had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4395 and €1080 per QALY compared with sertraline and paroxetine, respectively. Escitalopram was dominant over citalopram, which was confirmed by most one-way sensitivity analyses. The escitalopram strategy gained 0.011 QALYs more than citalopram, 0.008 more than paroxetine, and around 0.007 more than sertraline. Monte Carlo simulations indicated that ICER values for escitalopram were centered around €1100 and €4400 per QALY compared with paroxetine and sertraline, respectively. Although there is no official cost-effectiveness threshold in Italy, the value of €25,000 per QALY could be acceptable. All ICER values retrieved in all analyses were lower than this threshold. CONCLUSION: The findings from this cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that escitalopram could be accepted as a cost-effective strategy for the Lombardy region health service compared with the other SSRIs studied. The present assessment is based on ICER values resulting from this analysis, which are lower than the thresholds proposed by health care authorities in other European Union countries. These benefits are driven by the effectiveness of escitalopram, which result in an improved health-related quality of life, a higher probability of sustained remission, and better utilization of health care resources. The study results are robust and in line with other pharmacoeconomic analyses comparing escitalopram with other SSRIs.

[Nephrologist's behaviours and perceptions on sideropenic anemia's diagnosis and treatment for conservative phase nephropatic patient intolerant or not responding to oral iron therapy]. / Approccio clinico del nefrologo alla diagnosi e al trattamento dell'anemia sideropenica in pazienti con CKD non-dialitica.

INTRODUCTION. The objective of this survey was to describe the nephrologists attitude on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with non-dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD stages 3, 4 and 5), with iron deficiency anemia and no response/intolerance to oral iron therapy. Furthermore, this survey describes the nephrologists view about the impact of lack of anemia correction on patient health, as well as the influence of organization and management of nephrological centers on IV iron management. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 60 nephrologists were interviewed via web by using an interactive simulation that investigates nephrologists clinical and therapeutic approach on 3 different types of patients; subsequently, a questionnaire was administered with in-deeper questions. RESULTS. Regarding the first virtual patient, 64% of nephrologists still choose oral iron, while IV iron was chosen by 16% of them. 36% opted for ESA. For the other two virtual patients the most selected treatments were combinations of oral iron + ESA (42% and 36%) or IV iron + ESA (21% and 38%), respectively. According to what was perceived by nephrologists, issues related to IV iron are: patient discomfort due to frequent hospital transfers for IV administration (50%), inadequate center organization (48%), fear of damaging the venous tree (40%). CONCLUSIONS. Half of the nephrologists stated they are unsatisfied with available iron therapies. Difficult therapy management and restrictions of health structure were identified as barriers to the prescription of IV iron therapy. A smaller number of administrations and less free-iron toxicity are expected from nephrologists from the new iron preparations for the management of iron deficiency in patients not responding/intolerant to oral iron therapy.