Comparative Efficacy of Cabozantinib and Ramucirumab After Sorafenib for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Cabozantinib and ramucirumab are approved for the treatment of adults with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following prior sorafenib treatment; ramucirumab is restricted to use in patients with serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥ 400 ng/mL. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison evaluated the efficacy and safety of both drugs after sorafenib in patients with HCC and AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL. METHODS: Individual patient data (IPD) from the CELESTIAL trial (cabozantinib) and population-level data from the REACH-2 trial (ramucirumab) were used. To align with REACH-2, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only and had baseline serum AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL. The IPD from CELESTIAL were weighted to balance the distribution of 11 effect-modifying baseline characteristics with those of REACH-2. Overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared for the CELESTIAL (matching-adjusted) and REACH-2 populations using weighted Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and parametric (OS, Weibull; PFS, log-logistic) modeling. Rates of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and TRAE-related discontinuations were also compared. RESULTS: After matching and weighting, baseline characteristics were balanced between populations (REACH-2, N = 292; CELESTIAL, effective sample size = 105). Weighted KM estimates for OS (median [95% CI]) were not significantly different between cabozantinib and ramucirumab (10.6 [9.5-17.3] months versus 8.7 [7.3-10.8] months; p = 0.104), but PFS was significantly longer for cabozantinib than for ramucirumab (5.5 [4.6-7.4] months versus 2.8 [2.7-4.1] months; p = 0.016). Parametric modeling results were consistent with the weighted KM analysis. Rates of some grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were lower with ramucirumab than with cabozantinib; however, TRAE-related discontinuation rates were similar (p = 0.271). CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, cabozantinib significantly prolonged median PFS compared with ramucirumab after prior sorafenib treatment in patients with HCC and AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL; rates of some grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were lower with ramucirumab than cabozantinib but related discontinuation rates were not significantly different between treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov identifiers: CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426) and REACH-2 trial (NCT02435433). These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a symptom-focused index to evaluate representative symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional and functional well-being of patients with carcinoid syndrome (CS). METHODS: The development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index (FACT-CSI) followed US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and involved the following: (a) literature review; (b) interviews with 14 CS patients; (c) interviews with 9 clinicians; and (d) instrument development involving input from a range of PRO measure development and CS experts. The resulting draft instrument underwent cognitive interviews with 7 CS patients. RESULTS: Forty-six CS sources were reviewed. Analysis of patient interviews produced 23 patient-reported symptoms. The most frequently endorsed physical symptoms were flushing, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and food sensitivity/triggers. Seven priority CS emotional and functional themes were also identified by patients. Expert interviews revealed 12 unique priority symptoms - the most common being diarrhea, flushing, wheezing, edema, abdominal pain/cramping, fatigue, and 8 emotional and functional concerns. Through an iterative process of team and clinical collaborator meetings, data review, item reduction and measure revision, 24 items were selected for the draft symptom index representing symptoms, emotional concerns, global assessment of treatment side effects, and functional well-being. Cognitive interview results demonstrated strong content validity, including positive endorsement of item clarity (>86% across items), symptom relevance (>70% for most items), and overall measure content (86%). CONCLUSIONS: The FACT-CSI is a content-relevant, symptom-focused index reflecting the highest priority and clinically relevant symptoms and concerns of people with CS.

Carcinoid Heart Disease: Prognostic Value of 5-Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid Levels and Impact on Survival: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoid heart disease (CHD) can develop in patients with carcinoid syndrome (CS), itself caused by overproduction of hormones and other products from some neuroendocrine tumours. The most common hormone is serotonin, detected as high 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA). This systematic literature review summarises current literature on the impact of CHD on survival, and the relationship between 5-HIAA levels and CHD development, progression, and mortality. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane databases, and grey literature were searched using terms for CHD, 5-HIAA, disease progression, and mortality/survival. Eligible articles were non-interventional and included patients with CS and predefined CHD and 5-HIAA outcomes. RESULTS: Publications reporting on 31 studies were included. The number and disease states of patients varied between studies. Estimates of CHD prevalence and incidence among patients with a diagnosis/symptoms indicative of CS were 3-65% and 3-42%, respectively. Most studies evaluating survival found significantly higher mortality rates among patients with versus without CHD. Patients with CHD reportedly had higher 5-HIAA levels; median urinary levels in patients with versus without CHD were 266-1,381 versus 67.5-575 µmol/24 h. Higher 5-HIAA levels were also found to correlate with disease progression (median progression/worsening-associated levels: 791-2,247 µmol/24 h) and increased odds of death (7% with every 100 nmol/L increase). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of studies, the data indicate that CHD reduces survival, and higher 5-HIAA levels are associated with CHD development, disease progression, and increased risk of mortality; 5-HIAA levels should be carefully managed in these patients.

Quality-adjusted survival with first-line cabozantinib or sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the CABOSUN randomized clinical trial (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as Initial Targeted Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma of Poor or Intermediate Risk: The Alliance A031203 CABOSUN Trial (CABOSUN) was a randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial evaluating first-line cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This post hoc analysis evaluated quality-adjusted survival using Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease or Toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST). METHODS: Survival plots for cabozantinib and sunitinib (650-day follow-up) were partitioned into 3 health states: time spent before disease progression without toxicity (TWiST; toxicity based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0] grade 3/4 adverse events), time spent before disease progression with toxicity (TOX; durations of adverse events based on published literature), and time after disease recurrence (relapse) or progression to death (REL). Q-TWiST was the sum of the mean time spent in each state, with each state weighted to reflect patient preferences (from 0 [worst] to 1 [best]) using utility scores. TWiST was always weighted as 1. Overall survival and time to disease progression were based on all randomized patients (157 patients); TOX was based on all randomized and treated patients (150 patients). RESULTS: Across all utility combinations tested, Q-TWiST was found to be longer with cabozantinib versus sunitinib (range of differences, +24 days to +137 days). Q-TWiST differences that were found to be statistically significant (+92 days [95% confidence interval, 5-178 days] to +137 days [95% confidence interval, 60-214 days]) were of a clinically meaningful effect size (≥80 days), and were based on utility values that included those considered relevant for patients with aRCC (REL utility weight of 0.355, TOX utility weight of 0-1, and TWiST utility weight of 1). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with aRCC, first-line cabozantinib was found to provide longer quality-adjusted survival compared with sunitinib. These findings may help to inform clinical decision making. LAY SUMMARY: Cabozantinib and sunitinib are drugs that are used to treat patients with advanced kidney cancer. Clinical trials have shown that cabozantinib offers benefits over sunitinib, giving patients more time before their cancer progresses. It is important that this additional time before disease progression does not come at the expense of patients' quality of life, which can be affected by treatment side effects and/or ongoing cancer symptoms. Both quantity and quality of life are central to optimal treatment. In the current analysis of patients with advanced kidney cancer who were initiating treatment for the first time, cabozantinib provided more quality time before cancer progression compared with sunitinib.

Comparative Efficacy of Cabozantinib and Regorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No trials have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib for the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). OBJECTIVES: Conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the efficacy and safety of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and disease progression after prior sorafenib. METHODS: The CELESTIAL and RESORCE trials were used for indirect comparison of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in advanced HCC. Population-level data were available for RESORCE, individual patient data (IPD) for CELESTIAL. To align with RESORCE, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only. To minimize potential effect-modifying population differences, the CELESTIAL IPD were weighted to balance the distribution of clinically relevant baseline characteristics with those of RESORCE. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated for the matching-adjusted second-line CELESTIAL population and compared with those for RESORCE using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric modeling. Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affecting > 5% of patients in any study arm were compared. RESULTS: In the matching-adjusted second-line populations (CELESTIAL, effective sample size = 266; RESORCE, n = 573), median (95% confidence interval) OS was similar for cabozantinib and regorafenib (11.4 [8.9-17.0] versus 10.6 [9.1-12.1] months; p = 0.3474, log-rank test). Median PFS was longer for cabozantinib than regorafenib (5.6 [4.9-7.3] versus 3.1 [2.8-4.2] months; p = 0.0005, log-rank test). There was a trend for lower rates of some grade 3/4 TEAEs with regorafenib than with cabozantinib, which may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE but not from CELESTIAL, a difference that the MAIC methods could not remove. Only diarrhea rates were statistically significantly lower for regorafenib (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib may achieve similar OS and prolonged PFS compared with regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after prior sorafenib.

Cabozantinib and regorafenib are treatments approved for some patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a type of liver cancer, after disease progression despite prior sorafenib treatment. Cabozantinib, regorafenib and sorafenib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), meaning that they slow cancer progression by targeting specific ways that tumors grow. Cabozantinib and regorafenib offer benefits to patients compared with placebo (i.e., no treatment) for those who have progressed despite sorafenib treatment. No clinical studies have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib directly. This study compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and regorafenib using data from trials of each drug versus placebo: CELESTIAL for cabozantinib and RESORCE for regorafenib. These two trials were similar­both involved patients with progressive advanced HCC who had received previous cancer treatment. There were some important differences, but these were minimized using statistical methods (matching and adjustments/"weighting") allowing outcomes to be meaningfully compared. One difference that could not be removed by the statistical methods was that patients who were intolerant to prior sorafenib were excluded from RESORCE but were eligible for the CELESTIAL trial. In the otherwise matched populations, treatment with cabozantinib was associated with similar overall survival and significantly longer progression-free survival than regorafenib. Rates of diarrhea were significantly lower for regorafenib than cabozantinib, suggesting that regorafenib may be better tolerated, but this may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE. These findings cannot replace a head-to-head study, but may help in guiding decision-making between cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after soraftenib treatment.

A Budget Impact Model of the Addition of Telotristat Ethyl Treatment to the Standard of Care in Patients with Uncontrolled Carcinoid Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoid syndrome, a rare condition in patients with neuroendocrine tumours, characterised by flushing and diarrhoea, severely affects patients' quality of life. The current carcinoid syndrome standard of care includes somatostatin analogues, but some patients experience uncontrolled symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Telotristat ethyl is a novel treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US FDA that significantly reduces bowel movement frequency in patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. OBJECTIVE: We developed a model to evaluate the 5-year budget impact of introducing telotristat ethyl to standard care in Swedish patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. METHODS: Treatment response in the 12-week phase III TELESTAR trial (NCT01677910) informed telotristat ethyl efficacy; subsequently, health states were captured by a Markov model using 4-week cycles. TELESTAR open-label extension data informed telotristat ethyl discontinuation. The number of treatment-eligible patients was estimated from literature reviews reporting the prevalence, incidence and mortality of carcinoid syndrome. A Swedish database study informed real-world costs related to carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease costs. Telotristat ethyl market share was assumed to increase annually from 24% (year 1) to 70% (year 5). RESULTS: Over the 5-year model horizon, 44 patients were expected to initiate telotristat ethyl treatment. The cumulative net budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to current standard of care was €172,346; per-year costs decreased from €66,495 (year 1) to €29,818 (year 5). Increased drug costs from adding telotristat ethyl were offset by reduced costs elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: The expected budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to the standard of care in Sweden was relatively low, largely because of the rarity of carcinoid syndrome.

Real-world treatment patterns, resource use and costs of treating uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease: a retrospective Swedish study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in relation to carcinoid syndrome (CS) and carcinoid heart disease (CHD) in a real-world setting, and to provide perspective on treatment patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data and HRU were collected retrospectively from three Swedish healthcare registers. Adult patients diagnosed with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) grade 1 or 2 and CS who purchased somatostatin analogs (SSAs), and experienced controlled (defined by SSAs use) and uncontrolled (defined by SSAs dose escalation) CS for ≥8 months during the study period were included. Patients diagnosed with CHD from the date of the GEP-NET diagnosis were included in the CHD study group. RESULTS: Overall, total HRU cost increased with uncontrolled CS and CHD. Total resource cost was 15,500€/patient during controlled CS (8 months), rising to 21,700€/patient during uncontrolled CS (8 months), representing an increase of ∼40% (6200€/patient). Costs/patient were driven mainly by SSA use, tumor-related medical interventions and examinations. The total mean cost/year of disease was 1100€/patient without CHD, compared to 4600€/patient with CHD, a difference of 3500€/patient. Excluding SSA cost burden, the main drivers of increased cost in CHD patients were surgical interventions and echocardiography. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the treatment patterns and burden of uncontrolled CS symptoms and CHD using Swedish national register data. Increases in medical interventions and examinations HRU and increased SSA use suggest that SSA dose escalation alone may not effectively control the symptoms associated with uncontrolled CS, highlighting an unmet treatment need in this patient group.

Relationship Between Symptoms and Health-related Quality-of-life Benefits in Patients With Carcinoid Syndrome: Post Hoc Analyses From TELESTAR.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and carcinoid syndrome (CS) may experience chronic, recurring symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Little is known about the relationship between bowel movement (BM) frequency, patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL). Data from the TELESTAR study were used in exploratory, post hoc analyses to understand the relationship between durable reductions in BM frequency, symptom relief, and health-related QoL. METHODS: Patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and CS in the Phase III TELESTAR study were randomized (1:1:1) to receive telotristat ethyl (TE) 250 mg, TE 500 mg, or placebo three times daily (TID) during a 12-week double-blind treatment period (DBTP). All patients received TE 500 mg TID in an open-label extension (OLE) to Week 48. Durable response was predefined. Analyses compared durable responders (DRs) and non-durable responders (NDRs), irrespective of treatment group, at Weeks 12, 24, and 48. FINDINGS: At the start of the DBTP, 135 patients were randomized, 45 patients each to TE 250 mg, TE 500 mg, and placebo. After the 12-week DBTP, 48 of 135 patients were DRs (TE 250 mg, n = 20; TE 500 mg, n = 19; placebo, n = 9). Of the 115 patients who entered the OLE, 35 were DRs initially randomized to TE 250 mg (n = 18) or 500 mg (n = 17), 29 of whom maintained a durable response throughout the OLE. Of the 71 DBTP-NDRs (inclusive of patients initially randomized to placebo), 28 became OLE-DRs. There were 29 NDRs initially randomized to placebo who entered the OLE, 16 of whom became DRs when switched to TE 500 mg. DRs during the DBTP had greater symptom improvements in the DBTP; these improvements continued over the OLE. DBTP-DRs also maintained more meaningful QoL improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status, nausea and vomiting, pain, diarrhea, and EORTC QLQ-GINET21 gastrointestinal symptoms over the DBTP and OLE periods than DBTP-NDRs. IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that sustained improvements in BM frequency in patients with CS may have multifaceted, long-term effects on a patient's well-being. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01677910.

Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has recently been evaluated as a first-line treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). OBJECTIVE: To indirectly assess efficacy of cabozantinib versus standard-of-care (SoC) comparators in the first-line treatment of aRCC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify randomized controlled studies in the first-line setting for aRCC. The outcomes analyzed were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted comparing OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified in the SLR to be eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The overall study populations were heterogeneous in terms of risk groups; some studies included favorable risk patients. In intermediate-risk patients, HRs (95% confidence interval) for PFS were 0.52 (0.33, 0.82), 0.46 (0.26, 0.80), 0.20 (0.12, 0.36), and 0.37 (0.20, 0.68) when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, sorafenib, interferon (IFN), or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. In poor-risk patients, the NMA also demonstrated significant superiority in terms of PFS for cabozantinib; HRs were 0.31 (0.11, 0.90), 0.22 (0.06, 0.87), 0.16 (0.04, 0.64), and 0.20 (0.05, 0.88), when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, temsirolimus, IFN, or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. When the overall study populations were compared, the results were similar to the subgroup analyses. OS HRs in all analyses favored cabozantinib, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that cabozantinib significantly increases PFS in intermediate-, and poor-risk subgroups when compared to standard-of-care comparators. Although overall populations included favorable risk patients in some studies, the results seen were consistent with the subgroup analyses.

Quality of Life Outcomes for Cabozantinib Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: METEOR Phase III Randomized Trial.

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.

Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram in major depressive disorder in the Dutch health care setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram for the treatment of depression in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed using decision analytical techniques. Data sources included published literature, clinical trials, official price/tariff lists, national population statistics, and Delphi panel data. The comparators were venlafaxine XR and citalopram. The primary perspective of this health economic evaluation was that of the society in the Netherlands in 2010. The time horizon was 26 weeks. The effectiveness outcomes of the study were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Escitalopram was associated with a cost savings per patient of €263 versus venlafaxine XR and €1992 versus citalopram over a period of 26 weeks from a societal perspective. Escitalopram was also associated with a gains QALYs: 0.0062 versus venlafaxine XR and 0.0166 versus citalopram. Escitalopram was dominant over both venlafaxine XR and citalopram. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings from this cost-effectiveness analysis, the favorable clinical benefit of escitalopram resulted in a positive health economic benefit in the Netherlands.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation in Sweden of escitalopram compared with venlafaxine extended-release as first-line treatment in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major public health concern associated with a high burden to society, the health-care system, and patients and an estimated cost of €3.5 billion in Sweden. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus generic venlafaxine extended-release (XR) in MDD, accounting for the full clinical profile of each, adopting the Swedish societal perspective, and identifying major cost drivers. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was analyzed over a 6-month time frame, on the basis of a decision tree, for patients with MDD seeking primary care treatment in Sweden. Effectiveness outcomes for the model were quality-adjusted life-years and probability of sustained remission after acute treatment (first 8 weeks) and sustained for 6 months. Cost outcomes included direct treatment costs and indirect costs associated with sick leave. RESULTS: Compared with generic venlafaxine XR, escitalopram was less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (expected gain 0.00865) and expected 6-month sustained remission probability (incremental gain 0.0374). The better tolerability profile of escitalopram contributed to higher expected quality-adjusted life-years and lower health-care resource utilization in terms of pharmacological treatment of adverse events (though only a minor component of treatment costs). Expected per-patient saving was €169.15 for escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Cost from sick leave constituted about 85% of total costs. CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram was estimated as more effective and cost saving than generic venlafaxine XR in first-line MDD treatment in Sweden, driven by the effectiveness and tolerability advantages of escitalopram. The study findings are robust and in line with similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus SNRIs in second-step treatment of major depressive disorder in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder. METHODS: The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe. RESULTS: Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss. The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.

Quality of life outcomes in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: relationship to treatment response and symptom relapse.

OBJECTIVE: Data were analyzed from 2 prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of escitalopram in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) to characterize the baseline levels of functional disability and impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to assess the relationship between treatment outcomes (response or relapse) and disability or HRQoL. METHOD: Data from a 24-week, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose trial (N = 466) of escitalopram (10-20 mg/d) or paroxetine (40 mg/d) and from a 40-week, flexible-dose (escitalopram 10-20 mg/d), placebo-controlled relapse-prevention trial (N = 468) were analyzed. Obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms (DSM-IV criteria) were assessed using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), functioning was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and HRQoL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36). Baseline data were pooled for patients across both studies. For patients in the fixed-dose study, SDS and SF-36 scores were compared across treatment groups and for responders versus nonresponders. In the relapse-prevention trial, SDS and SF-36 scores were compared for relapsed versus nonrelapsed patients. RESULTS: Patients with more severe baseline symptoms (YBOCS > or = 27) reported significantly greater impairment on the SDS (P < .001) and SF-36 (except for bodily pain). Patients receiving escitalopram or paroxetine reported significant improvements on most SF-36 dimensions and on the SDS compared to placebo; however, improvements in work-related functioning were seen earlier for patients receiving escitalopram (20 mg/d). At the study endpoints, SDS and SF-36 scores were significantly better for patients who were responders (versus nonresponders) and for patients who did not relapse (versus relapsers). CONCLUSIONS: Obsessive-compulsive disorder is associated with significant impairment in functioning and HRQoL. Significant differences in disability and HRQoL between responders and nonresponders or relapsers and nonrelapsers suggest a relationship between symptomatic and functional outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: lundbecktrials.com Identifiers: 10205 and 10193.