Cost-effectiveness analysis of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte stimulating factor for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and economics of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in the primary prevention of chemotherapy-related neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 181 patients with NSCLC who received intermediate risk chemotherapy were collected from the information system of a tertiary hospital in China. Patients were categorized into two groups: those treated with mecapegfilgrastim (n = 91) and those treated with rhG-CSF (n = 90). The clinical efficacy rates of neutropenia prevention were used as effect indicators, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Logistic regression, generalized linear regression, and bootstrap methods were used for sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the mecapegfilgrastim and rhG-CSF groups in clinical efficacy rates (98.9 vs. 97.8%). However, the total cost in the mecapegfilgrastim group was significantly higher than that in the rhG-CSF group (16,341.6 CNY vs. 14,371.1 CNY, p = 0.03). The cost-minimization analysis shows that mecapegfilgrastim is not cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses confirm that these results are robust. CONCLUSION: Compared with rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim is not a cost-effective strategy for NSCLC patients in neutropenia prevention in China.

A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of nebulized budesonide and intravenous methylprednisolone in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nebulized budesonide and intravenous methylprednisolone in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in a real-world setting. Materials and methods: Data from 291 patients with AECOPD were collected from the information system of a tertiary hospital in China. Patients were categorized into two groups: those treated with nebulized budesonide (n = 148) and those treated with intravenous methylprednisolone (n = 143). Clinical efficacy and the rate of no readmission within 1 year after discharge were used as effect indicators, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Logistic regression, generalized linear regression, and bootstrap methods were used for sensitivity analyses. Results: There was no statistical difference between the budesonide and methylprednisolone groups in clinical efficacy rates (94.6% vs. 93.7%). The cost-minimization analysis shows that budesonide is not cost-effective owing to higher total cost. In terms of readmission rates, budesonide was again not cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 22276.62 CNY, which is higher than the willingness to pay (WTP) of 20206.20 CNY, the mean per admission expenditure in China. The sensitivity analyses confirm that these results are robust. Conclusion: Compared with intravenous methylprednisolone, nebulized budesonide is not a cost-effective strategy for AECOPD patients in China.

Use of a dose-response model to guide future clinical trial of benvitimod cream to treat mild and moderate psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the time-dose-response relationship of benvitimod cream after topical administration in patients with mild and moderate psoriasis vulgaris for dosage regimen exploring. METHODS: 36 patients with mild and moderate psoriasis vulgaris were randomly assigned to receive 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, and 0% (placebo) benvitimod cream of 30 g/1.7 m2 twice daily for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving more than 75% change of the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI 75) from baseline. A longitudinal Emax model was established using the NONMEM method, and then applied to try to find an appropriate dose for following trials. RESULTS: In the final time-dose-response model, the primary outcome at week 6 of PASI 75 of the 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% benvitimod cream was 31%, 63%, and 75%, respectively, demonstrating that the 1.0% benvitimod cream was an appropriate dose for the next trial. The time parameters of ET50 and ET90 were 15 and 69 days for 1.0% benvitimod cream, indicating that the maximum efficacy of PASI change rate was obtained at approximately week 10. The accuracy of PASI change rate by extrapolation prediction was limited at week 10, so the treatment period should be longer in future trials. CONCLUSIONS: The established dose-response model could well describe the relationship between PASI change rate and doses of benvitimod cream in patients with mild and moderate psoriasis vulgaris. This modeling approach may help choose 1.0% benvitimod cream twice daily as a dosage regimen in following clinical trials.