Modified Delphi study of decision-making around treatment sequencing in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Existing effectiveness models of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) evaluate a single line of treatment; however, RRMS patients often receive more than one lifetime DMD. To develop treatment sequencing models grounded in clinical reality, a detailed understanding of the decision-making process regarding DMD switching is required. Using a modified Delphi approach, this study attempted to reach consensus on modelling assumptions. METHODS: A modified Delphi technique was conducted based on three rounds of discussion amongst an international group of 10 physicians with expertise in RRMS. RESULTS: The panel agreed that the expected time from disease onset to Expanded Disability Status Scale 6.0 is a proxy for disease severity as well as suitable for classifying severity into three groups. A modelled clinical decision rule regarding the timing of switching should contain at least the time between relapses, magnetic resonance imaging outcomes and the occurrence/risk of adverse events. The experts agreed that the assessment of adverse event risk for a DMD is dependent on disease severity, with more risks accepted when the patient's disease is more severe. The effectiveness of DMDs conditional on their position in a sequence and/or disease duration was discussed: there was consensus on some statements regarding this topic but these were accompanied by a high degree of uncertainty due to considerable knowledge gaps. CONCLUSION: Useful insights into the medical decision-making process regarding treatment sequencing in RRMS were obtained. The knowledge gained has been used to validate the main modelling concepts and to further generate clinically meaningful results.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of micafungin compared to caspofungin in the treatment of systemic Candida infections (SCIs) in the UK, including invasive candidiasis and candidaemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of both echinocandin antifungal drugs was estimated using decision analysis. Response to treatment, resource utilisation, and costs in the model were derived from a phase 3, head-to-head comparative trial. The model includes only data directly related to the treatment of the systemic Candida infection over the study duration (a maximum period of 14 weeks). Transition probabilities were calculated based on the efficacy results from the clinical trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The model's effectiveness outcome is surviving patients who are successfully treated, based on the absence of signs and symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and culture/histologic evidence associated with the fungal infection. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed to identify cost-effectiveness in several specific patient groups. RESULTS: The total medical treatment costs for the micafungin group were pound 29,095, which is similar to the total costs for the caspofungin group (pound 29,953). In the micafungin arm 60% of the patients and in the caspofungin arm 58% of the patients were successfully treated and alive. Cost-effectiveness ratio of micafungin was pound 48,771, and of caspofungin pound 52,066 per successfully treated patient. Because the costs are lower and the effectiveness is higher for micafungin in comparison with caspofungin, micafungin is more cost-effective than caspofungin. However, probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis show that the differences cannot be considered significant due to a large variance although micafungin remained the most cost-effective option throughout all but one of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and effects of micafungin compare to those of caspofungin in the treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK. The results indicate that micafungin is cost-effective compared to caspofungin, although the difference was not found to be significant.

Economic analysis of micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the economic impact of micafungin (MICA) for treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidaemia (systemic Candida infections), a health economic analysis was conducted comparing MICA with liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The model was based on a phase III, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial which compared MICA with L-AMB. The model entailed a period of 14-20 weeks starting from initiation of treatment and was analysed from a German hospital perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were defined as the percentage of patients achieving clinical and mycological response after initial treatment and who were alive at the end of the study (EOS), and the total treatment-associated costs over the study period. RESULTS: The health economic analysis shows that with MICA, 52.9% of patients are successfully treated and were alive at EOS compared to 49.1% for L-AMB. In addition, MICA has, on average, lower treatment-associated costs than L-AMB with euro43 243 and euro49 216 per patient, respectively. Because the costs are lower and the effectiveness is higher for MICA in comparison with L-AMB, MICA is more cost-effective than L-AMB. However, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis show that the differences cannot be considered significant due to a large variance, although MICA remained the most cost-effective option throughout the one-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The lower costs and higher effectiveness reported for MICA versus L-AMB in this analysis indicate that MICA may be a more cost-effective therapy in the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidaemia when compared with L-AMB.