[Administrative delays of temporary recommendation for use: Impact on access to innovation in melanoma]. / Délais administratifs des RTU, effet sur l'accès à l'innovation dans le mélanome.

INTRODUCTION: Melanoma has benefited in recent years from therapeutic innovations, which have improved overall survival of patients. France has developed a regulatory arsenal allowing faster access to innovative drugs before marketing authorization: temporary authorization for use (ATU) and temporary recommendation for use (RTU). METHOD: We describe here the decision-making processes that led to the non-publication of the decree on the funding of three RTU in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, and we analyse the fate of these drugs in order to quantify the potential loss of chance. RESULTS: On 03AUG2018, the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Product Safety (ANSM) published 3 RTU in order to give rapid access to major innovations in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. These drugs have respectively demonstrated reductions in the risk of recurrence by 35 %, 43% and 55% for target populations of 2200, 1900 and 650 patients per year. Despite a favourable opinion on reimbursement from the French National Authority for Health (HAS), the decrees on reimbursement will never be published, prohibiting the use of these products before the marketing authorisation, and depriving many patients of a potential cure. CONCLUSION: Despite a favourable opinion from scientists and health agencies for the rapid availability of a drug, the French public health code does not systematically imply access to a therapeutic innovation. The reform of access to innovation implemented on 01JUL2021 may help tackle this issue.

Highly Efficient Reusable Carboxy Group Functionalized Imidazolium Salts for a Simple and Cost-effective Preparation of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone Derivatives.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: In the current study, environmentally benign and cost-effective procedures were suggested for the preparation of carboxy group functionalized imidazolium salts, including [Cmmim]BF4 - or [Cmmim]Br- as a new, reusable Brønsted acidic ionic liquid (BAIL) catalyst. Then, the catalytic performance of [Cmmim]BF4 - or [Cmmim]Br- were successfully inspected towards the three---components one---pot preparation of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone derivatives 4a-4q. The mentioned procedures show short reaction times, easy work-up procedure, green conditions, high yields of the products, high potent of recovering, and reusing capability. The current study is useful and adequate for the application and development of imidazolium salts on the basis of green chemistry principles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An aromatic aldehyde (1 mmol), barbituric acid (1 mmol), and malononitrile (1 mmol) were placed in a round---bottomed flask containing ethanol (5 mL). BAILs A and B (0.1 mmol, 10 mol%) were added to the mixture. The suspension was magnetically stirred at room temperature for an appropriate time (Table 2). After completion of the reaction, which was monitored by TLC (n---hexane:ethyl acetate = 3:1), the pure product was filtered off to separate the catalyst, washed with water, and recrystallized from ethanol to afford the pure compound. After separation of the product, the catalyst was recovered by evaporation of water, washed with Et2O, dried under vacuum for 2 h, and reused for the same reaction. RESULTS: The mentioned procedure shows short reaction times, easy work-up procedure, green conditions, high yields of the products, and high potent of recovering and reusing capability. CONCLUSION: In this study, we unveiled the synthesis of a new acetic acid functionalized ionic liquids [Cmmim]BF4 - BAIL A or [Cmmim]Br- BAIL B and their application for the preparation of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone derivatives via a three-component reaction among various aromatic aldehydes, barbituric acid, and malononitrile under mild and metal-free conditions. A wide range of pyrano[2,3-d]pyrimidinone derivatives bearing diverse functional groups was obtained in short reaction and excellent yields. Operational simplicity, recoverability, and reusability of catalysts, cheap and chemically stable reagents, high catalytic activity, easy work-up, and the eco-friendly procedure, make this method environmentally benign and cost-effective.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Custo-utilidade de terapias-alvo comparadas à dacarbazina para o tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não-cirúrgico e metastático no Sistema Único de Saúde do Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of isolated and combined targeted therapy regimens compared to dacarbazine for first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states (no progression, progression and death), monthly duration cycle and 10-year time horizon was constructed to compare targeted therapy regimens (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib and dabrafenib/trametinib) with dacarbazine chemotherapy under the Brazilian public health perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean cost was R$5662.50 ($1490.13) for dacarbazine, R$175 937.18 (46 299.26) for vemurafenib, R$167 461.70 ($44 068.87) for dabrafenib, R$425 901 ($112 079.21) for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and R$411 799.81 ($108 368.37) for dabrafenib/trametinib, whereas QALY was 0.91 for dacarbazine, 1.08 for vemurafenib, 1.12 for dabrafenib, 1.64 for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and 1.56 for dabrafenib/trametinib. The ICUR was estimated from R$572 165.76 ($150 569.94) to R$1 012 524.56 ($266 453.83) per patient, and the most impactful parameters were risk of progression and death, and treatment cost. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of targeted therapies in the Brazilian public health system would produce an additional expenditure of at least 19 times the national GDP per capita to increase in one year the quality-adjusted survival of each patient with advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of trametinib plus dabrafenib as first-line therapy for metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma in the Swiss setting.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with metastatic melanomas that harbour BRAF V600E or V600K mutations with trametinib plus dabrafenib appears to be superior to treatment with vemurafenib alone. This treatment regimen is likely to become available in Switzerland in the near future. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of trametinib plus dabrafenib. METHODS: A Markov cohort simulation was conducted to model the clinical course of typical patients with metastatic melanoma. Information on response rates, clinical condition and follow-up treatments were derived and transition probabilities estimated based on the results of a clinical trial that compared treatment with trametinib plus dabrafenib vs. vemurafenib alone. RESULTS: Treatment with trametinib plus dabrafenib was estimated to cost an additional CHF199 647 (Swiss francs) on average and yield a gain of 0·52 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF385 603 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100 000 per QALY would not be reached at the current US price of trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of trametinib in Switzerland at US market prices for the treatment of metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma with trametinib plus dabrafenib is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with vemurafenib monotherapy. A reduction in the total price of the combination therapy is required to achieve an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio for this clinically promising treatment.

Optimizing antiretroviral product selection: a sample approach to improving patient outcomes, saving money, and scaling-up health services in developing countries.

Over the last decade, increased funding to support HIV treatment programs has enabled millions of new patients in developing countries to access the medications they need. Today, although demand for antiretrovirals continues to grow, the financial crisis has severely constrained funding leaving countries with difficult choices on program prioritization. Product optimization is one solution countries can pursue to continue to improve patient care while also uncovering savings that can be used for further scale up or other health system needs. Program managers can make procurement decisions that actually reduce program costs by considering additional factors beyond World Health Organization guidelines when making procurement decisions. These include in-country product availability, convenience, price, and logistics such as supply chain implications and laboratory testing requirements. Three immediate product selection opportunities in the HIV space include using boosted atazanavir in place of lopinovir for second-line therapy, lamivudine instead of emtricitabine in both first-line and second-line therapy, and tenofovir + lamivudine over abacavir + didanosine in second-line therapy. If these 3 opportunities were broadly implemented in sub-Saharan Africa and India today, approximately $300 million of savings would be realized over the next 5 years, enabling hundreds of thousands of additional patients to be treated. Although the discussion herein is specific to antriretrovirals, the principles of product selection are generalizable to diseases with multiple treatment options and fungible commodity procurement. Identifying and implementing approaches to overcome health system inefficiencies will help sustain and may expand quality care in resource-limited settings.

Cost-effectiveness of telbivudine versus lamivudine for chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic hepatitis B is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, leading to serious consequences if not properly treated. Six treatment options for chronic hepatitis B are currently provided by the Brazilian public health system. Telbivudine is a nucleoside analogue that is neither included in the Brazilian clinical protocol nor in the therapeutic guidelines for chronic hepatitis B. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the viewpoint of the Brazilian public system, comparing it to lamivudine. METHODS: A Markov model was used to project lifetime complications and costs of treatment with lamivudine or telbivudine for chronic hepatitis B in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. To evaluate disease progression, probabilities and utilities of virologic response, virologic resistance, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment, interruption of treatment, death and seroconversion were collected in systematic reviews. Costs were collected in DATASUS, ABC da Saúde and scientific literature. RESULTS: Higher rate of virologic response and seroconversion was obtained with telbivudine, and also higher values of quality adjusted life years. However lamivudine is associated with lower costs and also lower cost-effectiveness values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for telbivudine, when compared with lamivudine, were US$ 30,575 and US$ 40,457, respectively for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSION: In chronic hepatitis B lamivudine is a more cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy when compared with telbivudine.

Cost-effectiveness of telbivudine versus lamivudine for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic hepatitis B is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, leading to serious consequences if not properly treated. Six treatment options for chronic hepatitis B are currently provided by the Brazilian public health system. Telbivudine is a nucleoside analogue that is neither included in the Brazilian clinical protocol nor in the therapeutic guidelines for chronic hepatitis B. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the viewpoint of the Brazilian public system, comparing it to lamivudine. METHODS: A Markov model was used to project lifetime complications and costs of treatment with lamivudine or telbivudine for chronic hepatitis B in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. To evaluate disease progression, probabilities and utilities of virologic response, virologic resistance, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment, interruption of treatment, death and seroconversion were collected in systematic reviews. Costs were collected in DATASUS, ABC da Saúde and scientific literature. RESULTS: Higher rate of virologic response and seroconversion was obtained with telbivudine, and also higher values of quality adjusted life years. However lamivudine is associated with lower costs and also lower cost-effectiveness values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for telbivudine, when compared with lamivudine, were US$ 30,575 and US$ 40,457, respectively for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSION: In chronic hepatitis B lamivudine is a more cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy when compared with telbivudine.

Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV + r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts. LIMITATIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV + r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained < $50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: ATV + r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATV+r [corrected] patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs.0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events(5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25. ATV + r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV + r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (< $50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.

First-line antiretroviral therapy after single-dose nevirapine exposure in South Africa: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the OCTANE trial.

BACKGROUND: The OCTANE trial reports superior outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir vs. nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) among women previously exposed to single-dose nevirapine to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission. However, lopinavir/ritonavir is 12 times costlier than nevirapine. METHODS: We used a computer model, with OCTANE and local data, to simulate HIV-infected, single-dose nevirapine-exposed women in South Africa. Outcomes of three alternative ART sequences were projected: no ART (for comparison), first-line nevirapine, and first-line lopinavir/ritonavir. OCTANE data included mean age (31 years) and CD4 cell count (135/µl); median time since single-dose nevirapine (17 months); and 24-week viral suppression efficacy for first-line ART (nevirapine: 85%, lopinavir/ritonavir: 97%). Outcomes included life expectancy, per-person costs (2008 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: With no ART, projected life expectancy was 1.6 years and per-person cost was $2980. First-line nevirapine increased life expectancy (15.2 years) and cost ($13 990; cost-effectiveness ratio: $810/year of life saved versus no ART). First-line lopinavir/ritonavir further increased life expectancy to 16.3 years and cost to $15 630 (cost-effectiveness ratio: $1520/year of life saved versus first-line nevirapine). First-line lopinavir/ritonavir cost-effectiveness was sensitive to prevalence of nevirapine-resistant virus at ART initiation, time from single-dose nevirapine exposure to ART initiation (6-12, 12-24, or >24 months), second-line ART efficacies, and outcomes after 24 weeks on ART. CONCLUSIONS: First-line lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART is very cost-effective in single-dose nevirapine-exposed, South African women similar to OCTANE participants. Lopinavir/ritonavir should be initiated in women with known nevirapine resistance or single-dose nevirapine exposure less than 12 months prior, or in whom such information is unknown.

Cost-effectiveness of atazanavir/ritonavir compared with lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-1 patients in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atazanavir/ritonavir (atazanavir/r) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (lopinavir/r) in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) patients in Sweden for whom efavirenz is not suitable. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to predict the lifetime outcomes of atazanavir/r and lopinavir/r in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and total costs. The model was structured to focus on treatment lines--how patients progress from first- to second-, and then to third-line treatment. Model inputs were derived directly from clinical trials, such as the CASTLE study (a 96-week head-to-head trial in first-line therapy), and from the Framingham risk-equation. The analysis was conducted from a payer perspective and included extensive scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The model predicted atazanavir/r to save 0.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.33) QALYs and reduce total costs by -202,896 SEK (95% CI -332,156 to -81,644 SEK) over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that atazanavir/r had a 100% probability to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of 200,000 SEK per QALY. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that atazanavir/r is cost-saving and more effective compared to lopinavir/r for patients who have previously not been exposed to antiretroviral drugs in Sweden.

Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive, protease inhibitor-resistant, HIV-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK.

BACKGROUND: Using data from the phase IIb POWER trials, darunavir boosted with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r; 600/100 mg twice daily; bid)-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) was shown to be significantly more efficacious and cost effective than other protease inhibitor (PI)-based therapy in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults. Furthermore, in the phase III TITAN trial (TMC114-C214), DRV/r 600/100 mg bid-based HAART generated a superior 48-week virological response rate compared with standard-of-care lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r; 400/100 mg bid)-based therapy in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive patients, and in particular those with one or more International AIDS Society - USA (IAS-USA) primary PI resistance-associated mutations at baseline. These patients had a broader degree of previous PI use/failure (0 - ≥ 2) than the POWER patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether DRV/r 600/100 mg bid-based HAART is cost effective compared with LPV/r-based therapy, from the perspective of Belgian, Italian, Swedish and UK reimbursement authorities, when used in treatment-experienced patients similar to TITAN patients with one or more IAS-USA primary PI mutations at baseline. METHODS: An existing Markov model containing health states defined by CD4 cell count ranges (>500, 351-500, 201-350, 101-200, 51-100 and 0-50 cells/mm³) and an absorbing state of death was adapted for use in the above-mentioned healthcare settings. Baseline demographics, CD4 cell count distribution, antiretroviral drug usage, virological/immunological response rates and matching transition probabilities were based on data collected during the first 48 weeks of therapy in the modelled subgroup of TITAN patients and the published literature. After treatment failure, patients were assumed to switch to a follow-on combination regimen. For each health state, utility values and mortality rates were obtained from the published literature. Data from local observational studies (Belgium, Sweden and Italy) or the published literature (UK) were used to determine resource-use patterns and costs associated with each CD4 cell count range. Unit costs were derived from official local sources; a lifetime horizon was taken and discount rates were chosen based on local guidelines. RESULTS: The base-case analysis predicted quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.785 in Belgium, 0.608 in Italy, 0.584 in Sweden and 0.550 in the UK when DRV/r-based therapy was used instead of LPV/r-based treatment. The estimated base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €6964/QALY gained in Belgium, €9277/QALY gained in Italy, €6868 (SEK69,687)/QALY gained in Sweden and €14,778 (£12 612)/QALY gained in the UK. Assuming a threshold of €30,000/QALY gained, DRV/r-based therapy remained cost effective over most parameter ranges tested in extensive one-way sensitivity analyses. The variation of immunological response rates and the time horizon were identified as important drivers of cost effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a greater than 70% probability of achieving an ICER below this threshold in all four healthcare settings. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of Belgian, Italian, Swedish and UK payers, DRV/r 600/100 mg bid-based HAART is predicted to be cost effective compared with LPV/r 400/100 mg bid-based therapy, when used to manage treatment experienced, lopinavir-naive, PI-resistant, HIV-infected adults with a broad range of previous PI use/failure.

Cost-effectiveness of nucleoside analog therapy for hepatitis B in China: a Markov analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the economic consequences of nucleoside analog therapy for hepatitis B treatment in China. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis of treatments for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB) was conducted using a Markov model, in which patients' yearly transitions between different health states were tracked. Patients were tracked as they moved between the following health states: CHB, HBeAg seroconversion (HBeAg-positive CHB patients can have this special health state), virologic resistance, virologic response, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, and death. The transition parameters were derived either from systematic reviews of the literature or from previous economic studies. Cost and utility data came from studies based on a Chinese CHB cohort. One-way sensitivity analyses as well as second-order Monte Carlo and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The entecavir strategy yielded the most quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients when compared with the "no treatment," the lamivudine, the adefovir, and the telbivudine strategies. The risks of complications and mortality also decreased. In the economic analysis, the "no treatment" strategy was the least effective, whereas the entecavir strategy was both the least expensive and the most cost-effective option, followed by telbivudine and lamivudine. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the entecavir strategy would result in improved cost-effectiveness in >90% of cases at a threshold of $20,000 per QALY. In a one-way sensitivity analysis, the most influential parameters impacting the model's robustness were the utilities of the CHB and virologic response health states. CONCLUSIONS: In China, when treating both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative CHB populations, entecavir is the most cost-effective option when compared with lamivudine, adefovir, and telbivudine.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of roadmap models in chronic hepatitis B using tenofovir as the rescue therapy.

BACKGROUND: The roadmap approach is recommended to guide chronic hepatitis B treatment. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various treatment strategies in the global market. METHODS: Lamivudine and telbivudine were tested in roadmap models with switch-to tenofovir if HBV was detectable at week 24 or add-on tenofovir if resistance developed at year 1. Tenofovir and entecavir were tested as continuous monotherapy. In the reference arm, lamivudine was used with add-on tenofovir if resistance developed at year 1. The primary measure of effectiveness was undetectable HBV DNA at year 2. Cost-effectiveness was measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US dollars against the reference arm. RESULTS: In the US and Germany, costs of the reference arms were US $14,486 and US $9,998 for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and US $11,398 and US $7,531 for HBeAg-negative patients, respectively. In HBeAg-positive patients, the lamivudine roadmap was most cost-effective (ICER US $15,260 in the US and US $29,113 in Germany) with comparable effectiveness (75.1%) to other strategies. In HBeAg-negative patients, tenofovir and entecavir monotherapies were most effective (91-96%) and cost-effective (ICER US $31,297-43,387 in the US and US $53,976-59,822 in Germany). In Asia, where telbivudine cost was lower, both telbivudine and lamivudine roadmaps were cost-effective in HBeAg-positive patients. Tenofovir would be most cost-effective in HBeAg-negative patients if its cost equaled that of telbivudine in Asia. CONCLUSIONS: In HBeAg-positive patients, lamivudine roadmap was most cost-effective; in Asia, telbivudine roadmap had comparable cost-effectiveness to lamivudine roadmap because of the relatively low price of telbivudine. In HBeAg-negative patients, entecavir and tenofovir monotherapies were more cost-effective than the roadmap models.

Telbivudine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in adults based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's evidence came from one randomised controlled trial (RCT) (GLOBE) of reasonable methodological quality comparing telbivudine with lamivudine. One other RCT that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria was excluded from the submission. For the primary outcome of therapeutic response telbivudine was statistically superior to lamivudine at weeks 52 and 104 for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients, and at week 104 for HBeAg-negative patients. There were statistically significant differences in favour of telbivudine for some secondary outcomes at 2 years including hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA reduction, HBV DNA non-detectability and alanine aminotransferase normalisation though not for HBeAg-positive patients. In HBeAg-positive patients there was no significant difference between treatment groups for HBeAg loss or seroconversion at any time point. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. Two RCTs comparing entecavir with lamivudine were included in the indirect comparison; however, this was poorly conducted and the results should be treated with caution. The manufacturer developed two economic models to determine the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine. Evidence on the efficacy of telbivudine and lamivudine was taken from the GLOBE trial; efficacy of adefovir was based on assumption. There was a lack of critical assessment and assurance of the quality of the data used to populate the models. The manufacturer concluded that telbivudine is a cost-effective option compared with lamivudine using evidence from the viral load model [HBeAg-positive patients/HBeAg-negative patients: mean incremental cost 19,087 pounds/49,003 pounds, mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain 1.30/4.67, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) 14,665 pounds/10,497 pounds per QALY]. Resubmitted results after a request for clarification by the ERG gave less favourable ICERs (HBeAg-positive patients/HBeAg-negative patients: mean incremental cost 23,983 pounds/41,910 pounds, mean QALY gain 1.56/2.07, ICER 15,377 pounds/20,256 pounds per QALY). The manufacturer concluded that telbivudine is a cost-effective option (on its own or followed by adefovir) for patients who have developed resistance to first-line telbivudine treatment; however, the presentation of the results was not ideal. In conclusion, although telbivudine was statistically superior to lamivudine for most antiviral outcomes, the difference was not clinically significant; in addition, the cost-effectiveness evidence for telbivudine presented in the manufacturer's submission was limited. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that telbivudine is not recommended for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B and that people currently receiving telbivudine should have the option to continue therapy until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop.

[Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of telbivudine vs. lamivudine in treating the patients with HBeAg-positive and negative chronic hepatitis B].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term cost effectiveness of telbivudine and lamivudine for the treatment of CHB. METHODS: Cost effectiveness was conducted from social health insurance perspective. A Markov model was established based on disease progression pattern and the data from the 2 years GLOBE clinical trial. The information of annual medical expenditure and quality-of-life assessment for different CHB-related diseases was obtained from literature. Incremental cost per life year or quality-adjusted life year gained was measured. RESULTS: Compared with lamivudine, the incremental cost for 1 additional QALY gained with telbivudine in treating HBeAg-positive and -negative CHB were 5403 yuan and 28239 yuan in Beijing, as well 4916 yuan and 29618 yuan in Guangzhou, respectively. According to national economic burden of CHB-related diseases, the ICER with telbivudine vs lamivudine were 1282 yuan and 31565 yuan for HBeAg-positive and -negative CHB. CONCLUSION: According to WHO recommendation for ICER threshold, telbivudine is cost effective in treating HBeAg-positive and -negative CHB, as compared to lamivudine.

Comparison of Markov model and discrete-event simulation techniques for HIV.

BACKGROUND: Markov models have been the standard framework for predicting long-term clinical and economic outcomes using the surrogate marker endpoints from clinical trials. However, they are complex, have intensive data requirements and are often difficult for decision makers to understand. Recent developments in modelling software have made it possible to use discrete-event simulation (DES) to model outcomes in HIV. Using published results from 48-week trial data as model inputs, Markov model and DES modelling approaches were compared in terms of clinical outcomes at 5 years and lifetime cost-effectiveness estimates. METHODS: A randomly selected cohort of 100 antiretroviral-naive patients with a mean baseline CD4+ T-cell count of 175 cells/mm3 treated with lopinavir/ritonavir was selected from Abbott study M97-720. Parameter estimates from this cohort were used to populate both a Markov and a DES model, and the long-term estimates for these cohorts were compared. The models were then modified using the relative risk of undetectable viral load as reported for atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in the published BMS 008 study. This allowed us to compare the mean cost effectiveness of the models. The clinical outcomes included mean change in CD4+ T-cell count, and proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA (viral load [VL]) <50 copies/mL, VL 50-400 copies/mL and VL >400 copies/mL. US wholesale acquisition costs (year 2007 values) were used in the mean cost-effectiveness analysis, and the cost and QALY data were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: The results show a slight predictive advantage of the DES model for clinical outcomes. The DES model could capture direct input of CD4+ T-cell count, and proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA VL <50 copies/mL, VL 50-400 copies/mL and VL >400 copies/mL over a 48-week period, which the Markov model could not. The DES and Markov model estimates were similar to the actual clinical trial estimates for 1-year clinical results; however, the DES model predicted more detailed outcomes and had slightly better long-term (5-year) predictive validity than the Markov model. Similar cost estimates were derived from the Markov model and the DES. Both models predict cost savings at 5 and 10 years, and over a lifetime for the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment regimen as compared with an atazanavir regimen. CONCLUSION: The DES model predicts the course of a disease naturally, with few restrictions. This may give the model superior face validity with decision makers. Furthermore, this model automatically provides a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which is cumbersome to perform with a Markov model. DES models allow inclusion of more variables without aggregation, which may improve model precision. The capacity of DES for additional data capture helps explain why this model consistently predicts better survival and thus greater savings than the Markov model. The DES model is better than the Markov model in isolating long-term implications of small but important differences in crucial input data.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lopinavir/ritonavir and atazanavir+ritonavir regimens in the CASTLE study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis comparing lopinavir with ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) for antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CD4+ T-cell distribution and total cholesterol (TC) profile as reported in the CASTLE study. METHODS: This decision analysis study used a previously published Markov model of HIV disease, incorporating coronary heart disease (CHD) events to compare the short- and long-term budget impacts and CHD consequences expected for the two regimens. RESULTS: Patients were assumed to have a baseline CHD risk of 4.6% (based on demographic data) and it was also assumed that 50% of the population in the CASTLE study were smokers. The CHD risk differences (based on percent of patients with TC >240 mg/dL) in favor of ATV+RTV resulted in an average improvement in life expectancy of 0.031 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11 days), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,409,734/QALY. Use of the LPV/r regimen saved $24,518 and $36,651 at 5 and 10 years, respectively, with lifetime cost savings estimated at $38,490. A sensitivity analysis using a cohort of all smokers on antihypertensive medication estimated an average improvement in life expectancy of 31 quality-adjusted days in favor of ATV+RTV, and a cost-effectiveness ratio of $520,861/QALY: a ratio that is still above the acceptable limit within the US. CONCLUSION: The use of an LPV/r-based regimen in antiretroviral-naïve patients with a baseline CHD risk similar to patients in the CASTLE study appears to be a more cost-effective use of resources compared with an ATV+RTV-based regimen. The very small added CHD risk predicted by LPV/r treatment is more than offset by the substantial short- and long-term cost savings expected with the use of LPV/r in antiretroviral-naïve individuals with average to moderately elevated CHD risk.

Non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis for HIV: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2007. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were assessed, subjected to data extraction using a standard template and quality assessment using published criteria. Studies were synthesised using a narrative approach with full tabulation of results from all included studies. RESULTS: One clinical effectiveness study meeting the inclusion criteria was identified, a cohort study of PEP in a high-risk HIV-negative homosexual male cohort in Brazil. The quality of the study was generally weak. Seroincidence in the cohort as a whole (2.9 per 100 person-years) was very similar to that expected in this population (3.1 per 100 person-years, p > 0.97), despite the seroconversion to HIV being 1/68 in the PEP group and 10/132 in the group not receiving PEP. High-risk sexual activities declined over time for both PEP and non-PEP users. Four economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria of the review. The methodological quality of the studies was mixed. The studies are constrained by a lack of published data on the clinical effectiveness of PEP after non-occupational exposure, with effectiveness data derived from one study of occupational PEP. Their generalisability to the UK is not clear. Results suggest that PEP following non-occupational exposure to HIV was cost saving for men who have unprotected receptive anal intercourse with men, whether the source partner is known to be HIV positive or not; heterosexuals after unprotected receptive anal intercourse; and intravenous drug users sharing needles with a known HIV-positive person. PEP following non-occupational exposure to HIV was cost-effective for all male-male intercourse (unprotected receptive and insertive anal intercourse, unprotected receptive oral sex, and 'other') and was possibly cost-effective for intravenous drug users and high-risk women. Four additional studies were identified giving further information about adverse events associated with PEP after non-occupational exposure to HIV. The majority of participants experienced adverse events with the most common being nausea and fatigue. Rates were generally higher in participants receiving triple therapy than in participants receiving dual therapy. Completion of PEP therapy was variable, ranging from 24% to 78% of participants depending on type of therapy. Toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw conclusions on the clinical effectiveness of non-occupational PEP for HIV because of the limited evidence available. The review of cost-effectiveness suggests that non-occupational PEP may be cost-effective, especially in certain population subgroups; however, the assumptions made and data sources used in the cost-effectiveness studies mean that their results should be used with caution.