Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing combinations of urate lowering therapy and anti-inflammatory treatment in gout patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of various combinations of urate lowering therapy (ULT) and anti-inflammatory treatment in the management of newly diagnosed gout patients, from the Dutch societal perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic patient-level simulation estimating costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) comparing gout and hyperuricemia treatment strategies was performed. ULT options febuxostat, allopurinol and no ULT were considered. Flare treatments naproxen, colchicine, prednisone, and anakinra were considered. A Markov Model was constructed to simulate gout disease. Health states were no flare, and severe pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or no pain in the presence of a flare. Model input was derived from patient level clinical trial data, meta-analyses or from previously published health-economic evaluations. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analyses were presented using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and summarized using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: The ICER for allopurinol versus no ULT was €1,381, when combined with naproxen. Febuxostat yielded the highest utility, but also the highest costs (€4,385 vs. €4,063 for allopurinol), resulting in an ICER of €25,173 when compared to allopurinol. No ULT was not cost-effective, yielding the lowest utility. For the gout flare medications, comparable effects on utility were achieved. Combined with febuxostat, naproxen was the cheapest option (€4,404), and anakinra the most expensive (€4,651). The ICER of anakinra compared to naproxen was €818,504. Colchicine and prednisone were dominated by naproxen. CONCLUSION: Allopurinol and febuxostat were both cost-effective compared to No ULT. Febuxostat was cost-effective in comparison with allopurinol at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds. For treating gout flares, colchicine, naproxen and prednisone offered comparable health economic implications, although naproxen was the favoured option.

Cost-effectiveness of Physical Therapy vs Intra-articular Glucocorticoid Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Physical therapy and glucocorticoid injections are initial treatment options for knee osteoarthritis, but available data indicate that most patients receive one or the other, suggesting they may be competing interventions. The initial cost difference for treatment can be substantial, with physical therapy often being more expensive at the outset, and cost-effectiveness analysis can aid patients and clinicians in making decisions. Objective: To investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness between physical therapy and intra-articular glucocorticoid injection as initial treatment strategies for knee osteoarthritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial performed from October 1, 2012, to May 4, 2017. Health economists were blinded to study outcomes and treatment allocation. A randomized sample of patients seen in primary care and physical therapy clinics with a radiographically confirmed diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis were evaluated from the clinical trial with 96.2% follow-up at 1 year. Interventions: Physical therapy or glucocorticoid injection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness between 2 alternative treatments. Acceptability curves of bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to identify the proportion of ICERs under the specific willingness-to-pay level ($50 000-$100 000). Health care system costs (total and knee related) and health-related quality-of-life based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were obtained. Results: A total of 156 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [8.7] years; 81 [51.9%] male) were randomized 1:1 and followed up for 1 year. Mean (SD) 1-year knee-related medical costs were $2113 ($4224) in the glucocorticoid injection group and $2131 ($1015) in the physical therapy group. The mean difference in QALY significantly favored physical therapy at 1 year (0.076; 95% CI, 0.02-0.126; P = .003). Physical therapy was the more cost-effective intervention, with an ICER of $8103 for knee-related medical costs, with a 99.2% probability that results fall below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000. Conclusions and Relevance: A course of physical therapy was cost-effective compared with a course of glucocorticoid injections for patients with knee osteoarthritis. These results suggest that, although the initial cost of delivering physical therapy may be higher than an initial course of glucocorticoid injections, 1-year total knee-related costs are equivalent, and greater improvement in QALYs may justify the initial higher costs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01427153.

Topical Cyperus rotundus essential oil for treatment of axillary hyperpigmentation: a randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The oil of the grass Cyperus rotundus (purple nutsedge) is an effective and safe treatment option for a variety of conditions. It has anti-inflammatory and antipigmenting properties. There have been no clinical trials comparing topical C. rotundus oil with skin-lightening treatments for axillary hyperpigmentation. AIM: To assess the efficacy of C. rotundus essential oil (CREO) in treating axillary hyperpigmentation, and compare with another active treatment hydroquinone (HQ) and a placebo (cold cream) in this study. METHODS: The study included 153 participants, who were assigned to one of three study groups: CREO, HQ group or placebo group. A tri-stimulus colorimeter was used to assess pigmentation and erythema. Two independent experts completed the Physician Global Assessment, and the patients completed a self-assessment questionnaire. RESULTS: CREO had significantly (P < 0.001) better depigmenting effects than HQ. CREO and HQ did not differ significantly in terms of depigmentation effects (P > 0.05); however, there were statistically significant differences in anti-inflammatory effects and decrease in hair growth (P < 0.05) in favour of CREO. CONCLUSIONS: CREO is a cost-effective and safe treatment for axillary hyperpigmentation.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous vedolizumab vs subcutaneous adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of intravenous (IV) vedolizumab vs subcutaneous (SC) adalimumab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) was assessed in the VARSITY clinical trial, which demonstrated for the first time in a head-to-head clinical trial setting the superiority of IV vedolizumab with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. Both therapies offer better clinical outcomes compared with immunomodulators and corticosteroids but are often more expensive than other pharmacologic treatment options. Thus, payers and decision makers face the task of leveraging finite resources for optimal health benefits, which can be aided by the use of cost-effectiveness models. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab from a US payer perspective using head-to-head data from the VARSITY trial. METHODS: A cohort decision tree was developed to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes associated with IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab to treat adults with moderately to severely active UC. Simulated cohorts began the model at treatment induction and continued to maintenance treatment with vedolizumab or adalimumab unless experiencing nonresponse or serious adverse drug reaction (ADR), in which case those patients transitioned to second-line treatment with tofacitinib, infliximab, or golimumab, where they could achieve response and/or remission or not. Those who still did not achieve response or remission or who had a serious ADR transitioned to a state of nonresponse for the remainder of the model or received surgery. The process was modeled for patients who were treatment naive and treatment experienced at baseline separately. Efficacy and safety inputs for vedolizumab and adalimumab were taken from the VARSITY trial, and corresponding inputs for other biologics were derived from a network meta-analysis. All clinical inputs were extrapolated over 2 years. Direct medical costs (expressed in 2019 US dollars) included those related to drug acquisition and administration, ADRs, routine monitoring, and additional treatment procedures. Outcomes were not discounted given the short time horizon. Univariate sensitivity and scenario analysis were applied to evaluate the robustness of the model to underlying parameter and structural uncertainty. RESULTS: Initial treatment with vedolizumab was associated with a higher remission rate at 2 years (73.5% vs 71.5%) and higher persistence (22.0% vs 14.4%) compared with adalimumab. Total direct medical costs were lower for the vedolizumab cohort ($100,022 vs $151,133), primarily driven by the lower annual drug acquisition cost of vedolizumab ($85,953 vs $137,492). When endoscopic improvement was used as the outcome measure, IV vedolizumab was also associated with higher endoscopic remission and lower overall costs. CONCLUSIONS: With better clinical outcomes and lower direct medical costs over a 2-year model horizon, vedolizumab IV was the dominant treatment strategy vs adalimumab SC in adults with moderately to severely active UC. Outcomes were driven primarily by the probability of major ADRs and induction response. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (Lexington, MA). Schultz and Turpin are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Turpin has stock or stock options in Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Diakite, Carter, and Snedecor are employees of OPEN Health (Bethesda, MD), which received payment from Takeda for the design and execution of this study. This study was presented at the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2020 Congress and Digestive Disease Week (DDW), 2020 Virtual Congress.

Optimal treatment sequence for targeted immune modulators for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

The cost-effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroids for patients with septic shock.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hydrocortisone is a cost-effective treatment for patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Data linkage-based cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: New South Wales and Queensland intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Patients with septic shock randomly assigned to treatment with hydrocortisone or placebo in the Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health-related quality of life at 6 months using the EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire. Data on hospital resource use and costs were obtained by linking the ADRENAL dataset to government administrative health databases. Clinical outcomes included mortality, health-related quality of life, and quality-adjusted life-years gained; economic outcomes included hospital resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness from the health care payer perspective. We also assessed cost-effectiveness by sex. To increase the precision of cost-effectiveness estimates, we conducted unrestricted bootstrapping. RESULTS: Of 3800 patients in the ADRENAL trial, 1772 (46.6%) were eligible and 1513 (85.4% of those eligible) were included. There was no difference between hydrocortisone or placebo groups in regards to mortality (218/742 [29.4%] v 227/759 [29.9%]; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.12; P = 0.47), mean number of QALYs gained (0.10 ± 0.09 v 0.10 ± 0.09; P = 0.52), or total hospital costs (A$73 515 ± 61 376 v A$69 748 ± 61 793; mean difference, A$3767; 95% CI, -A$2891 to A$10 425; P = 0.27). The incremental cost of hydrocortisone was A$1 254 078 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In females, hydrocortisone was cost-effective in 46.2% of bootstrapped replications and in males it was cost-effective in 2.7% of bootstrapped replications. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive hydrocortisone did not significantly affect longer term mortality, health-related quality of life, health care resource use or costs, and is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Cost Analysis of Adjunctive Hydrocortisone Therapy for Septic Shock: U.S. Payer Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost analysis of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy for severe septic shock from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States. DESIGN: Estimates of outcomes were aggregate data from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials. In these trials, the outcomes of interests were ICU length of stay, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving blood transfusion. Each outcome was monetized into a set of mutually exclusive components and was aggregated to estimate the cost-per-patient based on each trial. Cost inputs for each outcome were obtained from literature and adjusted based on the medical care consumer price index. To estimate the budget impact using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, per-patient avoided cost was multiplied by expected septic shock annual incidence. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis evaluated the robustness of the findings, and Monte Carlo simulation estimated 95% CI of the findings. SETTING: A total of 103 medical-surgical ICU (69 for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and 34 for Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock). PATIENTS: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years old with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy (hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/d for 7 d for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and hydrocortisone at a 50 mg IV bolus every 6 hr and fludrocortisone as a 50 µg tablet once daily). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Per Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $8,111 (95% CI, $3,914-$12,307) per patient, driven by improvements in ICU-free days, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and blood transfusion proportion. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $750 million. Per Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $25,539 per patient (95% CI, $22,853-$28,224), driven by improvements in ICU free-days, vasopressor-free days, and ventilation-free days. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $2.3 billion. The deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis showed the cost of ICU stays to be the most influential factor in both analyses. The sensitivity analysis using the reported median showed a greater monetized benefit of $10,658 (Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock) and $30,911 (Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy yields a significant monetized benefit based on inputs from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials.

The cost-effectiveness of biologic versus non-biologic treatments and the health-related quality of life among a sample of patients with inflammatory bowel disease in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia.

AIMS: This study's objectives were to examine and compare the cost-effectiveness of biologic and non-biologic therapies in the improvement of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the medical records of patients with IBD treated at a tertiary-care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Drug utilization costs and HRQoL scores were evaluated at baseline and after six months of treatment. Patients' HRQoL was measured using the Arabic version of the standardized EuroQol 5 Dimensional 3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire with a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and 69 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) were included in the study (N = 156), and 59 (37.82%) were treated with biologics. Similar effects of both types of medications were found on the HRQoL domains of mobility, usual activities, and pain and discomfort, while biologics outperformed non-biologics on the self-care domain. The mean utilization cost of a biologic-based treatment over a six-month period was SAR 25,690.46 (USD 6,850.79) higher than that of the non-biologic treatment (95% confidence interval (CI): 24,548.55-27,465.11), and the change in the ED-5D-3L VAS score from baseline to follow-up was 4.78 points (95% CI: 1.96-14.00). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that IBD therapy with biologic-based treatment is always more expensive, but also more effective in improving HRQoL 99.45% of the time. Adalimumab was found to be less cost effective than infliximab in the management of CD. LIMITATIONS: Information bias cannot be ruled out, as this investigation was a retrospective cohort study with a relatively small sample that was not randomized. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis can serve as a foundation to introduce HRQoL-based recommendations for the use of biologics in the management of IBD in Saudi Arabia.

Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work. SETTING: Fifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days. INTERVENTIONS: 2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up. RESULTS: 198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean 'profit' to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results.

Comparison of two techniques used in routine care for the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema, subconjunctival triamcinolone injection and intravitreal dexamethasone implant: medical and economic importance of this randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether they are injected peri- or intraocularly, corticosteroids are still essential tools in the therapeutic arsenal for treating inflammatory macular oedema. A few years ago, however, only triamcinolone acetonide was available to ophthalmologists. While this compound was initially developed for rheumatological or dermatological use, it has been increasingly deployed in ophthalmology, despite still being off-label. In 2011, the system for delivery of dexamethasone from a biodegradable, injectable implant into the vitreous cavity obtained approval for use in inflammatory macular oedema. While the efficacy and safety of triamcinolone in macular oedema, including inflammatory oedema, have already been studied, there are currently no publications on subconjunctival triamcinolone injections, which are simple, effective and well tolerated. To date, the dexamethasone 700 µg implant has been authorized for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis, but there have been no studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different peri- and intraocular strategies, including the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. METHODS: This protocol is therefore designed to compare the efficacy and safety of peri- and intraocular corticosteroid injections in the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. In this ongoing study, 142 patients will be included, and the oedematous eye will be randomised to treatment with either subconjunctival triamcinolone injection or an intravitreal implant containing 700 µg dexamethasone. Follow-up is planned for 6 months with monthly visits. Each visit will include visual acuity measurement, a slit lamp examination, fundoscopy, intraocular pressure measurement, laser flare measurement (if available) and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will have a real impact on public health if it is shown that a Kenacort retard® (i.e. triamcinolone) injection costing just €2.84 and performed in the physician's office (with no additional overhead costs) is at least as effective as the dexamethasone 700 µg implant (Ozurdex®; costing approximately €960 with the injection performed in a dedicated room), with no increased side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02556424. Registered on 22 September 2015.

Evaluation of Cost-Utility of Thoracic Interlaminar Epidural Injections.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic thoracic pain, even though not as prevalent as low back and neck pain, appears in approximately 30% of the general population. The severity of thoracic pain and degree of disability seems to be similar to other painful conditions. Despite this severity, interventions in managing chronic thoracic pain are less frequent, and there is a paucity of literature regarding epidural injections and facet joint interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: As with lumbar and cervical spine, a multitude of interventions are offered in managing chronic thoracic pain, including interventional techniques with epidural injections and facet joint interventions. A single randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been published with a 2-year follow-up of clinical effectiveness of the results. However, there have not been any cost-utility analysis studies pertaining to either epidural injections or facet joint interventions in thoracic pain. Based on the results of the RCT, a cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections was undertaken. Evaluation of the cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing thoracic disc herniation, thoracic spinal stenosis, and thoracic discogenic or axial pain was assessed in 110 patients with a 2-year follow-up. Direct payment data from 2018 was utilized for procedural costs and indirect costs. Costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 or addition of 40% of cost to accommodate for indirect payments and arrive at overall costs. Cost-utility analysis showed direct procedural cost of USD $1943.19, whereas total estimated costs year per QALY were USD $3245.12.

Adipose-Derived Biogenic Nanoparticles for Suppression of Inflammation.

Extracellular vesicles secreted from adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) have therapeutic effects in inflammatory diseases. However, production of extracellular vesicles (EVs) from ADSCs is costly, inefficient, and time consuming. The anti-inflammatory properties of adipose tissue-derived EVs and other biogenic nanoparticles have not been explored. In this study, biogenic nanoparticles are obtained directly from lipoaspirate, an easily accessible and abundant source of biological material. Compared to ADSC-EVs, lipoaspirate nanoparticles (Lipo-NPs) take less time to process (hours compared to months) and cost less to produce (clinical-grade cell culture facilities are not required). The physicochemical characteristics and anti-inflammatory properties of Lipo-NPs are evaluated and compared to those of patient-matched ADSC-EVs. Moreover, guanabenz loading in Lipo-NPs is evaluated for enhanced anti-inflammatory effects. Apolipoprotein E and glycerolipids are enriched in Lipo-NPs compared to ADSC-EVs. Additionally, the uptake of Lipo-NPs in hepatocytes and macrophages is higher. Lipo-NPs and ADSC-EVs have comparable protective and anti-inflammatory effects. Specifically, Lipo-NPs reduce toll-like receptor 4-induced secretion of inflammatory cytokines in macrophages. Guanabenz-loaded Lipo-NPs further suppress inflammatory pathways, suggesting that this combination therapy can have promising applications for inflammatory diseases.

A descriptive study of the effect of a disciplinary proceeding decision on medical practitioners' practice behaviour in the context of providing a hydrocortisone and lignocaine injection.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a descriptive study to evaluate any changes in practice behaviour regarding the provision of hydrocortisone and lignocaine (H&L) injections among doctors and how an H&L injection is priced following a disciplinary proceeding decision. A doctor had been fined SGD 100,000 for failing to obtain informed consent before an H&L injection. METHODS: We performed a survey shortly after the disciplinary decision to ascertain: (a) the category of the respondent; (b) whether the respondent provided H&L injections and how much he charged before the decision; and (c) after the decision. All members of the Singapore Medical Association and College of Family Physicians Singapore are doctors and were invited to participate. RESULTS: 1,927 doctors responded to the survey. Prior to the decision, 804 doctors did not perform H&L injections; this increased by 20.4% to 968 after the decision. The number of doctors who gave H&L injections decreased by 164 (14.6%), from the previous 1,123. Pre-decision, doctors who determined their own price for H&L injections charged a median pricing ≤ SGD 100. Post-decision, the median charge rose to > SGD 100 to SGD 200. At higher price bands, the number of doctors who charged > SGD 1,000 increased eight-fold, from eight to 65. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated how a disciplinary decision can affect practice behaviour, and specifically how doctors may choose to not offer a service, an example of defensive medicine through avoidance behaviour. It also showed how prices for a service can rise following such a decision, which demonstrates the concept of negative general deterrence in sentencing.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Treating Recurrent Non-infectious Uveitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Alimera Sciences, the company manufacturing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) 0.19 mg (tradename ILUVIEN®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of FAc for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre + , was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper contains a summary of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company, the ERG's critique on the submitted evidence, and the guidance issued by the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company submission (CS) was mainly informed by the PSV-FAI-001 trial in which FAc was compared with (limited) current practice [(L)CP], which was not considered to be representative of UK clinical practice by the ERG. There was no comparison of FAc to any treatment listed in the final scope, and especially to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (dexamethasone), which was considered to be a relevant comparator by the AC. The primary outcome of the PSV-FAI-001 was recurrence of uveitis in the treated eye. Most of the events for the primary outcome were imputed during the PSV-FAI-001 trial, which probably led to an overestimation of the number of recurrences of disease, and a biased estimate of the relative effectiveness of FAc versus (L)CP. Finally, the place of FAc in the treatment pathway was not clearly defined by the company. Substantial uncertainty surrounded the cost-effectiveness results due to the shortcomings of the clinical evidence. Additionally, the quality of life of patients was not measured during the PSV-FAI-001 trial and long-term effectiveness data of FAc were lacking. The ERG adjusted several issues identified in the CS and added dexamethasone as a comparator in the decision analytic model. The ERG presented multiple analyses as base-cases because several elements of the assessment remained uncertain. The fully incremental ERG results ranged from dexamethasone (extendedly) dominating FAc (when assuming a hazard ratio of 1 or 0.7 for dexamethasone versus FAc) to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,153 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for FAc versus (L)CP [when assuming a hazard ratio of 0.456 for dexamethasone versus (L)CP]. The ICER of FAc versus (L)CP ranged from £12,325 to £30,153 per QALY gained. After a second AC meeting where alternative company scenarios comparing FAc with dexamethasone were considered by the AC, the AC concluded that "the results of the company's analyses ranged from the fluocinolone acetonide implant being dominant (that is, it was more effective and costs less), to an ICER of £29,461 per QALY gained, and most of the ICERs were below £20,000 per QALY gained". Therefore, the AC recommended FAc as a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye in the final TA590 guidance (published July 2019).

Drug costs of Medicaid-covered therapies for pemphigus vulgaris treatment.

Pemphigus vulgaris is the most common form of pemphigus affecting an estimated 30,000-40,000 people in the United States. Costs of systemic and immunoglobulin therapies for pemphigus vulgaris have remained persistently high. Herein, we address the current costs and changes in costs of immunosuppressive treatments, anti-inflammatory treatments, and immunoglobulin treatments covered by Medicaid for pemphigus vulgaris from 2013-2020.

Anti-TNF biosimilars in Crohn's Disease: a patient-centric interdisciplinary approach.

Introduction: The purpose of this review is to highlight the role of biosimilars in early treatment in IBD and introduce ways to facilitate a patient-centric switching process through multidisciplinary approach. Areas covered: We summarize existing scientific literature related to the role of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in terms of early treatment and cost-saving and implementing switching process. Expert opinion: Use of anti-TNF biosimilars in patients has the potential for large drug-acquisition cost-saving, which can be reinvested into early treatment. Managed switched programs for adalimumab can add further benefits in the future.

Comparison of United States and International Ophthalmic Drug Pricing.

PURPOSE: To compare United States and international drug pricing for commonly prescribed intravitreal and topical ophthalmic medications. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: For 25 commonly used ophthalmic medications (3 intravitreal, 22 topical), we obtained 2017 third quarter United States average wholesale price (AWP), drug acquisition cost, or consumer pricing through United States government health insurance plans (Veterans Affairs [VA], Medicaid, Medicare Part B, and Medicare Part D) and commercial drug plans (CVS Caremark and Navitus Health Solutions), online pricing without insurance through a large United States warehouse retailer (Costco), and international drug pricing through government-sponsored health plans in Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, and Japan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Drug acquisition costs and consumer pricing of ophthalmic drugs through various payment systems. All prices were converted to United States dollars. RESULTS: For intravitreal medications in the United States, aflibercept and ranibizumab were priced similarly to each other and were more expensive than dexamethasone implants. Pricing of aflibercept and ranibizumab through government health insurance plans in Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, and Japan were less expensive by as much as 84.3% compared with the United States. For topical medications in the United States, pricing varied significantly both across different classes of medications and also between nonbranded and branded medications. Drug acquisition costs through the VA and Medicaid were inexpensive on average, but pricing through a hospital-employee drug insurance plan offered the smallest range (between $2.35 and $60.00). In all 5 non-United States countries studied, each topical medication with the exceptions of cyclosporine emulsion and difluprednate was less than $100, and 94.4% of topical medications in these countries had a nonbranded or branded option that was less than $50. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, for topical more than intravitreal medications, significant price variation exists across both different drug pricing systems and different medications. Price differentials between nonbranded and branded medications can be significant. Internationally, topical medications exhibited a more limited and lower price range compared with drug pricing in the United States.

Incorporating Clinical Practice Guidelines and Quality Measures Into High-Quality Cost-Effective Care for Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.

This article presents a hypothetical case of a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS), reviewing the use of clinical practice guidelines and incorporation of quality measures into practice. Appropriate diagnosis of MS is important to avoid the cost and consequences of a misdiagnosis. Ensuring that treatment discussion occurs when a patient with MS is receptive is good clinical practice and a guideline recommendation from the American Academy of Neurology. Continuing dialogue about disease-modifying therapy and ongoing monitoring are important for patient care and improved outcomes. Ultimately, cost-effective care in MS relates to using appropriate medicines in patients with active MS, ensuring adherence, and careful monitoring.

Cost per response for guselkumab versus adalimumab in the United States using data from a head-to-head trial in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Aims: To estimate annual cost per response (CPR) in the US and number needed to treat (NNT) among patients receiving guselkumab or adalimumab treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO).Materials and methods: Results from VOYAGE 1, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, head-to-head, 48-week study of guselkumab compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe PsO were used to estimate annual CPR for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responses. Drug dosing followed US label recommendations and drug costs were based on US annual wholesale acquisition costs. Number needed to treat (NNT) and annual CPR analyses were estimated, and week 48 response rates were assumed to be maintained for both the induction and maintenance years.Results: Week-48 PASI 90 response rates were 76.3% for guselkumab and 47.9% for adalimumab. The CPR for PASI 90 in the induction year for guselkumab was $113,861 vs $151,226 for adalimumab. Both drugs had lower CPRs for PASI 90 in the maintenance year: $85,395 for guselkumab and $140,424 for adalimumab for adalimumab. The NNT for a PASI 90 response was 1.3 for guselkumab and 2.1 for adalimumab; CPRs and NNT were also lower for guselkumab than for adalimumab for PASI 75 and PASI 100 for both induction and maintenance years.Limitations and conclusions: In this analysis, extrapolating 48-week results from a single head-to-head study, guselkumab was more cost-effective with lower NNT than adalimumab in both the induction and maintenance years for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 responses.