Levosimendan: new indications and evidence for reduction in perioperative mortality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the last years, the perioperative use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients is spreading. Moreover, newer indications have been suggested such as the treatment of sepsis-associated myocardial dysfunction. In the present review, we discuss the most recent evidences in these settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Levosimendan has been seemingly confirmed to reduce mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In particular, it appears to be the only inotropic drug to have a favorable effect on survival in any clinical setting. Moreover, levosimendan has been shown to exert a cardioprotective action and to reduce acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and ICU stay in cardiac surgery patients. Finally, levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality in patients with severe sepsis and to improve renal outcomes in critically ill patients. SUMMARY: Although a strong rationale likely exists to use levosimendan in the setting of perioperative and critical care medicine, evidence mainly comes from small and often poor-quality randomized clinical trials, whose results acquire significance only when pooled in meta-analyses. Moreover, some aspects related to which subgroups of patients may derive the most benefits from receiving levosimendan, to the optimal timing of administration, and to the potential adverse effects need to be further clarified. Important insights will be hopefully provided soon by the several large multicenter investigations which are currently ongoing.

The favourable alliance between CardioMEMS and levosimendan in patients with advanced heart failure.

AIMS: We report the results of a real-world study based on heart failure (HF) patients' continuous remote monitoring strategy using the CardioMEMS system to assess the impact of this device on healthcare outcomes, costs, and patients' management and quality of life. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled seven patients (69.00 ± 4.88 years; 71.43% men) with HF, implanted with CardioMEMS, and daily remote monitored to optimize both tailored adjustments of home therapy and/or hospital infusions of levosimendan. We recorded clinical, pharmacological, biochemical, and echocardiographic parameters and data on hospitalizations, emergency room access, visits, and costs. Following the implantation of CardioMEMS, we observed a 50% reduction in the total number of hospitalizations and a 68.7% reduction in the number of days in the hospital. Accordingly, improved patient quality of life was recorded with EQ-5D (pre 58.57 ± 10.29 vs. 1 year post 84.29 ± 19.02, P = 0.008). Echocardiographic data show a statistically significant improvement in both systolic pulmonary artery pressure (47.86 ± 8.67 vs. 35.14 ± 9.34, P = 0.022) and E/e' (19.33 ± 5.04 vs. 12.58 ± 3.53, P = 0.023). The Quantikine® HS High-Sensitivity Kit determined elevated interleukin-6 values at enrolment in all patients, with a statistically significant reduction after 6 months (P = 0.0211). From an economic point of view, the net savings, including the cost of CardioMEMS, were on average €1580 per patient during the entire period of observation, while the analysis performed 12 months after the implant vs. 12 months before showed a net saving of €860 per patient. The ad hoc analysis performed on the levosimendan infusions resulted in 315 days of hospital avoidance and a saving of €205 158 for the seven patients enrolled during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative strategy prevents unplanned access to the hospital and contributes to the efficient use of healthcare facilities, human resources, and costs.

Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for third-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with 7 states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved 2 independent models comparing asciminib vs bosutinib and asciminib vs ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib have a lower cost of 30,275€. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591€) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to 2 prior lines of treatment in a cost-effectiveness manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach. / [Artículo traducido] Asciminib para el tratamiento de la leucemia mieloide crónica en tercera línea: análisis coste-efectividad basado en el enfoque de remisión libre de tratamiento.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for 3rd-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with seven states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved two independent models comparing asciminib vs. bosutinib and asciminib vs. ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib has a lower cost of 30,275 €. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591 €) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs. bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to two prior lines of treatment in a cost-effective manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

Cost-effectiveness of levosimendan in patients with acute heart failure.

Heart failure is a major public health problem because of its high prevalence and impact on mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and social costs. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the effects of the novel inodilator levosimendan versus standard inotropic therapy (ST) of dobutamine in acute heart failure. A study population of 292 patients with acute heart failure was derived from an observational registry of patients referred to our department. Of these, 147 patients received iv levosimendan (0.05-0.1 µg·kg·min for 24 hours), and 145 patients were treated with ST. Duration of hospitalization, survival at 1 month, and the rehospitalization rate during the year after the index hospitalization were evaluated. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The mean length of hospitalization was 12.08 and 13.57 days in the levosimendan and ST groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Rehospitalization rates were lower in the levosimendan group at 6 months (1.44% vs. 2.3%; P < 0.05) and 12 months (7.6% vs. 14.3%; P < 0.05). Mortality rate at 1 month was 2.1% versus 6.9% in the levosimendan and ST groups, respectively (P < 0.05). The per-capita cost of treatment with levosimendan was €78.86 higher than that with ST during the first hospitalization but €280.22 lower when the rehospitalization rate was considered.

Oral therapies for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a population-based cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare but life-threatening condition that is characterized by progressive elevation of pulmonary artery pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance, leading to right-sided heart failure and frequently death. Orally administered agents used for the treatment of symptomatic, moderate-to-severe PAH include sildenafil and the endothelin (ET) receptor antagonists (ERAs), bosentan and sitaxentan (sitaxsentan). Ambrisentan is a new oral ET(A) receptor-selective ERA, with higher ET receptor affinity than bosentan. Placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that ambrisentan (5 or 10 mg/day) is safe and effective. To provide health economic data on the multiple oral PAH therapies currently available, a population-based cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was conducted for Canada. METHODS: The primary requirement for a CMA is that all clinical outcomes be equivalent between comparator treatments. To provide such supporting data, a literature search was conducted for RCTs of oral agents used to treat symptomatic PAH. This was followed by application of direct and indirect statistical methods to support the hypothesis of clinical equivalence between the oral agents. Estimates for PAH prevalence, incidence and death rates were then used to build a population-based CMA model. The base-case analysis considered costs for drug therapy, outpatient pharmacy costs, medical consultations and visits, laboratory and diagnostic procedures and other healthcare-related resources. In addition, costs for secondary pharmacotherapy in cases where the primary agent had to be discontinued because of adverse effects were also included. The time horizon for evaluating pharmacotherapy was 3 years, all costs were in 2008 Canadian dollars ($Can) and the costs were discounted at a rate of 3% annually. The study perspective was the Canadian healthcare system. RESULTS: There were no double-blind RCTs comparing ambrisentan with any of the other oral agents. Therefore, an indirect comparison of placebo-controlled trials of PAH drugs had to be used to support the clinical equivalence. This included a calculation of standardized mean differences (SMD) between agents (vs placebo) and a meta-regression analysis on the primary and secondary trial endpoints. Keeping in mind the caveats associated with indirect trial comparisons, the data suggested similar clinical efficacy over 12-16 weeks between agents, as indicated by the identical magnitude of the SMD between the active agent and placebo and the non-significant differences between drugs as determined by the meta-regression analysis. The population-based model projected that the number of PAH patients clinically suitable for these drugs in Canada would be 931 in the first full-budget year (i.e. 2009) with an increase to 1114 by the third full year. The CMA revealed the following rank order of the least to most costly agent; sildenafil, ambrisentan, sitaxentan and bosentan. Sildenafil was the least costly, primarily because of the lower daily drug-acquisition cost. Of the three ERAs, ambrisentan would be associated with annual cost savings of $Can3.4 and $Can5.6 million when used as an alternative to sitaxentan or bosentan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ambrisentan is less costly than other available ERAs, including bosentan and sitaxentan, but is more costly than sildenafil. In PAH patients in whom an ERA is the preferred agent, ambrisentan may be the drug of choice because of its economic advantages and improved safety profile.

Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Third-line treatment options for patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia include tyrosine kinase inhibitors and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The objective of this study was to develop a Markov model with a lifetime time horizon to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for third-line chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) or alloHSCT from the public healthcare system perspective in Germany, Sweden, and Canada. METHODS: Clinical outcomes were derived from the literature, and from patient-level data (phase II PACE trial) for ponatinib. Resource use included drugs, alloHSCT, monitoring and follow-up, adverse events, and end-of-life care; costs were based on national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using chronic myeloid leukemia health-state utilities from an international time-trade-off study. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum for Germany and Sweden, and 5% for Canada. RESULTS: Ponatinib yielded more discounted QALYs than any second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor/alloHSCT in all three countries, mainly owing to better response rates and longer durations of response. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors were US$21,543-37,755/QALY in Germany, $24,018-38,227/QALY in Sweden, and $43,001-58,515/QALY in Canada. Ponatinib was dominant over alloHSCT in Germany, while incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. alloHSCT in Sweden and Canada were $715/QALY and $31,534/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ponatinib may improve outcomes (mainly because of higher response rates and longer response durations) at an acceptable cost level compared with other third-line treatment options for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in Germany, Sweden, and Canada; however, the lack of an indirect comparison is a limitation of our study.

Ambrisentan for the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2007, ambrisentan is the second oral endothelin A-receptor antagonist available for the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in patients with World Health Organization class II or III symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This article examines the clinical pharmacology of ambrisentan, its efficacy and adverse effects, and future directions for research. METHODS: Pertinent articles and abstracts were identified through searches of MEDLINE and Current Contents from 1966 to January 15, 2008, using the term ambrisentan. The reference lists of identified articles were searched for additional publications. Abstracts presented at professional meetings from 2005 through 2007 were also reviewed. RESULTS: The literature review identified 3 studies of ambrisentan in PAH: 1 dose-ranging study; 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies; and 1 drug-conversion study. In the dose-ranging study, ambrisentan at doses of 1 to 10 mg was associated with significant improvements from baseline in the 6-minute walk distance at 12 weeks that ranged from 33.9 m with ambrisentan 1 mg (P = 0.003) to 38.1 m with ambrisentan 5 mg (P = 0.001). In the placebo-controlled studies, ambrisentan at doses of 2.5 to 10 mg/d was associated with significant improvements versus placebo in the 6-minute walk distance at 12 weeks that ranged from 22 m with ambrisentan 2.5 mg (P = 0.022) to 59 m with ambrisentan 5 mg (P

Role of ambrisentan in the management of pulmonary hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To review the role of ambrisentan in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (1950-June 2008), Iowa Drug Information Service (1966-March 2008), EMBASE (1966-June 2008), bibliographies of pertinent articles, and unpublished data provided by the manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Search terms included ambrisentan, endothelin antagonist, pulmonary hypertension, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. Due to limited literature available, additional criteria to limit searches were not used. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracts and original preclinical and clinical research reports available in the English language were identified for review. All manufacturer-provided data were also evaluated. Literature related to ambrisentan, endothelin antagonists, pulmonary hypertension, and pulmonary arterial hypertension were included. Four clinical trials evaluated the efficacy of ambrisentan in adults with symptomatic PAH. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ambrisentan is the latest endothelin-receptor antagonist (ERA) to obtain FDA approval for the treatment of PAH. It joins the first FDA-approved ERA, bosentan. Like bosentan, ambrisentan is available orally (with once-daily dosing compared with bosentan's twice-daily dosing) and has been shown to improve exercise capacity and delay clinical worsening. As with bosentan, the most significant safety concerns with ambrisentan relate to potential liver injury and a contraindication in pregnancy. Although ambrisentan has higher affinity for the endothelin type A receptor than for the endothelin type B receptor, specific advantages of this selectivity, in terms of efficacy compared with bosentan, a nonselective agent, have not been demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Ambrisentan has been shown to be an effective ERA in patients with PAH. A significant advantage of ambrisentan is the lack of any clinically important drug interactions with warfarin and sildenafil, which are frequently used by patients being treated for PAH.

The costs of treating acute heart failure: an economic analysis of the SURVIVE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost per life year gained with levosimendan relative to dobutamine in treatment of acute heart failure based on the Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial. METHODS: SURVIVE enrolled 1,327 patients (levosimendan 664, dobutamine 663) from nine nations with 180-day survival from date of randomisation as the primary endpoint. Hospital resource utilisation was determined via clinical case reports. Unit costs were derived from hospital payment schedules for France, Germany and the UK, and represent a third-party payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a subset of the SURVIVE patient population selected in accordance with current levosimendan labeling. RESULTS: Mortality in the levosimendan group was 26 versus 28% for dobutamine (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.13, p=0.40). Initial hospitalisation length of stay was identical (levosimendan 14.4, dobutamine 14.5, p=0.98). Slightly lower rates of readmission were observed for levosimendan relative to dobutamine at 31 (p=0.13) and 180 days (p=0.23). Mean costs excluding study drug were equivalent for the index admission (levosimendan euro5,060, dobutamine euro4,952; p=0.91) and complete episode (levosimendan euro5,396, dobutamine euro5,275; p=0.93). CONCLUSION: At an acquisition cost of euro600 per vial, there is at least 50% likelihood that levosimendan is cost effective relative to dobutamine if willingness to pay is equal to or greater than euro15,000 per life year gained.

Ponatinib for Treating Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Incyte Corporation) of ponatinib (Inclusig®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. This paper focusses on Ph+ ALL. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was derived from a phase II, single-arm, open-label, non-comparative study. Given the lack of comparative evidence, a naïve indirect comparison was performed against re-induction chemotherapy comparing major cytogenetic response and complete remission. Best supportive care (BSC) was assumed to produce no disease response. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment for patients with Ph+ ALL. The company submitted a state transition model that analysed the incremental cost effectiveness of ponatinib versus re-induction therapy and BSC for the treatment of Ph+ ALL in patients whose disease is resistant to dasatinib, who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate or who have the threonine-315-isoleucine mutation. This population was further subdivided into those who were suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and those who were not. The company's revised economic evaluation, following the clarification process, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in those suitable for allo-SCT of £31,123 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ponatinib compared with re-induction chemotherapy and £26,624 per QALY gained compared with BSC. For those for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, the company-estimated ICER compared with BSC was £33,954 per QALY gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that, when combined, produced a range in ICERs (due to uncertainty of the most appropriate overall survival function) of dominant (being less expensive and providing more QALYs) to £11,727 per QALY gained compared with re-induction chemotherapy and between £7892 and £31,696 per QALY gained compared with BSC for those in whom allo-SCT was suitable. For those in whom allo-SCT was not suitable, the ERG estimated that ponatinib was dominant. During the consultation period, the company agreed a revised patient access scheme (PAS) that reduced the ICER ranges to £7156 to £29,995 per QALY gained versus BSC and to less than £5000 per QALY gained versus re-induction chemotherapy. In people for whom allo-SCT was unsuitable, ponatinib dominated BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of UK NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS.

Cost Effectiveness of Bosentan for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: Although many studies have reported on the cost-effectiveness of bosentan for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a systematic review of economic evaluations of bosentan is currently lacking. Objective evaluation of current pharmacoeconomic evidence can assist decision makers in determining the appropriate place in therapy of a new medication. Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted in English-language databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit databases, and the Cochrane Library) and Chinese-language databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, and Chongqing VIP) to identify studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of bosentan for PAH treatments. Results: A total of 8 published studies were selected for inclusion. Among them were two studies comparing bosentan with epoprostenol and treprostinil. Both results indicated that bosentan was more cost-effective than epoprostenol, while the results of bosentan and treprostinil were not consistent. Four studies compared bosentan with other endothelin receptor antagonists, which indicated ambrisentan might be the drug of choice for its economic advantages and improved safety profile. Only two economic evaluations provided data to compare bosentan versus sildenafil, and the results favored the use of sildenafil in PAH patients. Four studies compared bosentan with conventional, supportive, or palliative therapy, and whether bosentan was cost-effective was uncertain. Conclusions: Bosentan may represent a more cost-effective option compared with epoprostenol and conventional or palliative therapy. There was unanimous agreement that bosentan was not a cost-effective front-line therapy compared with sildenafil and other endothelin receptor antagonists. However, high-quality cost-effectiveness analyses that utilize long-term follow-up data and have no conflicts of interest are still needed.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

Cost-benefits of incorporating levosimendan into cardiac surgery practice: German base case.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-benefit of using levosimendan compared with dobutamine, in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support. METHODS: A two-part Markov model was designed to simulate health-state transitions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and estimate the short- and long-term health benefits of treatment. Hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, medication, and adverse events were key clinical- and cost-inputs. Cost-benefits were evaluated in terms of costs and bed stays within the German healthcare system. Drug prices were calculated from the German Drug Directory (€/2014) and published literature, with a 3% annual discount rate applied. The base case analysis was for a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: The use of levosimendan vs dobutamine was associated with cost savings of €4787 per patient from the German hospital perspective due to reduced adverse events and shorter hospital LOS, leading to increased bed capacity and hospital revenue. LIMITATIONS: A pharmacoeconomic calculation for the specific situation of the German healthcare system that is based on international clinical trial carries a substantial risk of disregarding potentially relevant but unknown confounding factors (i.e., ICU-staffing, co-medications, standard-ICU care vs fast-tracking, etc.) that may either attenuate or increase the outcome pharmacoeconomic effects of a drug; however, since these conditions would also apply for patients treated with comparators, their net effects may not necessarily influence the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support appears to be cost-saving. The results of the analysis provide a strong rationale to run local clinical studies with pharmacoeconomic end-points which would allow a much more precise computation of the benefits of levosimendan.

[Cost analysis of the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure. Levosimendan versus dobutamine]. / Análise de custos do tratamento de episódios de descompensação aguda de insuficiência cardíaca. Levosimendan versus dobutamina.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the treatment with levosimendan is more expensive than the usual one with dobutamine, since price of medications does not usually represent the greatest expense in the treatment of cardiac decompensation. METHODS: The cost of treatment of 18 inpatients with cardiac decompensation, 9 of which treated with dobutamine (dobuta group) and 9 with levosimendan (levo group), was compared. Groups were similar concerning age, sex, functional class and cardiac function. RESULTS: Treatment costs were similar for both groups. In the levo group, the costs with the drug were higher than in the dobuta group, but those related to the length of stay in intensive care unit and to the material used during admission were lower. Levo-drug: R$ 5,414.00; material: R$ 399.90; hospital daily rates: R$ 5,061.20; professional honorarium: R$ 3,241.80; total costs: R$ 14,117.00. Dobuta-drug: R$ 2,320.10; materials: R$ 1,665.70; hospital daily rates: R$ 6,261.90; professional honorarium: R$ 3,894.30; total costs: R$ 14,142.00. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher price of levosimendan, the global cost of the treatment was similar for patients who were treated either with dobutamine or levosimendan. Patients who were treated with levosimendan had a shorter length of stay in intensive care unit.

Pharmaco-economics of levosimendan in cardiology: a European perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure places a significant economic burden on health care. Acute heart failure requires hospitalization and often frequent re-hospitalization in expensive wards where vasoactive rescue therapy is often added on top of standard medications. In these lean times, there is a growing need for cost-effective therapeutic options that supply superior support and in addition shorten the length of stay in hospital and reduce re-hospitalization rates. The inodilator levosimendan represents the latest addition to the vasoactive treatments of acute heart failure patients, and it appears to meet these expectations. Our aim was to answer the question whether the treatment efficacy of levosimendan - when selected as therapy for patients hospitalized for acute heart failure - brings savings to hospitals in various European countries representing different economies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We took a conservative approach and selected some a fortiori arguments to simplify the calculations. We selected seven European countries to represent different economies: Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Israel. Data on the costs of medications and on the cost per day were collected and fed in a simple algorithm to detect savings. These saving varied from country to country, from a minimum of €0.50 in Germany to a maximum of €354.64 in Sweden. CONCLUSIONS: The use of levosimendan as a therapy for patients hospitalized for acute heart failure provides a net saving to hospitals driven by a reduction in the length of hospital stay. This finding is true in each of the countries considered in this study.

Intravenous levosimendan treatment is cost-effective compared with dobutamine in severe low-output heart failure: an analysis based on the international LIDO trial.

BACKGROUND: Levosimendan, a novel calcium sensitiser, improves cardiac performance and symptoms without increasing oxygen consumption, and decreases the mortality of patients with low-output heart failure. AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous treatment with levosimendan compared with dobutamine in patients with severe low-output heart failure. METHODS: This economic evaluation was based on a European clinical trial (LIDO), in which 203 patients with severe heart failure randomly received a 24 h infusion with either levosimendan or dobutamine. Survival and resource utilisation data were collected for 6 months; survival was extrapolated assuming a mean additional lifetime of 3 years based on data from the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study trial. Costs were based on study drug usage and hospitalisation in the 6-month follow-up. A sensitivity analysis on dosage of drug and duration of survival was performed. RESULTS: The mean survival over 6 months was 157+/-52 days in the levosimendan group and 139+/-64 days in the dobutamine group (P<0.01). When extrapolated up to 3 years, the gain in life expectancy was estimated at 0.35 years (discounted at 3%). Levosimendan increased the mean cost per patient by 1108, which was entirely due to the cost of the study drug. The incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS) was 3205 at the European level; in the individual countries the cost per LYS ranged between 3091 and 3331. The result was robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although the patients in the levosimendan group were alive for more days and thus at risk of hospitalisation for longer, there was no increase in hospitalisation or hospitalisation costs with levosimendan treatment. The cost per LYS using levosimendan compares favourably with other cost-effectiveness analyses in cardiology.

[Efficiency of initiation with ambrisentan versus bosentan in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension]. / Eficiencia del inicio con ambrisentan frente a bosentan en el tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial pulmonar.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of initiation with endothelin receptor antagonists, ambrisentan or bosentan, followed by sequential combination with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors and prostanoids in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, from the Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed based on the four New York Heart Association functional classes. A panel of three experts reached a consensus on patient management based on clinical practice. Patients revised their treatment every 12 weeks, based on their health status and previous medication records. Pharmacological treatment costs and costs associated with very frequent adverse events (AE) were considered in a horizon of 60 weeks. Outcomes were measured in qualityadjusted life years (QALY). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: No clinically relevant differences in QALY per-patient and year were found for initiation with ambrisentan and bosentan: 0.6853 and 0.6902, respectively. Initiation with ambrisentan resulted in lower pharmacological treatment and AE management costs: ?35,550 and ?117 versus ?40,224 and ?171. In the sensitivity analysis, initiation with ambrisentan resulted in a negative significant cost difference: ?-4,982; CI95%[?- 8,014; ?-2,500]; while no significant differences in QALY were found: -0.0044; CI95%[-0.0189; 0.0101]. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation with ambrisentan followed by sequential combination with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors and prostanoids yields comparable outcomes at lower costs than initiation with bosentan.

Objetivo: Se pretende evaluar la eficiencia del tratamiento secuencial de combinación de la hipertensión arterial pulmonar iniciado con antagonistas del receptor de la endotelina, ambrisentan o bosentan, seguido de inhibidores de la fosfodiesterasa- 5 y prostanoides, desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Métodos: Se desarrolló un modelo de Markov basado en las cuatro clases funcionales de la New York Heart Association. Un panel de tres expertos alcanzó un consenso sobre el manejo del paciente basado en la práctica clínica. Los pacientes revisaron su tratamiento cada 12 semanas, en función de su estado de salud y de la medicación recibida previamente. Se incluyeron costes farmacológicos y costes asociados al manejo de eventos adversos (EA) muy frecuentes, en un horizonte de 60 semanas. Los resultados se expresaron en términos de los años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC). Se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico. Resultados: No se encontraron diferencias clínicamente relevantes en los AVAC por paciente y año para el inicio con ambrisentan y bosentan: 0,6853 y 0,6902, respectivamente. El inicio con ambrisentan resultó en un coste farmacológico y asociado al manejo de EA menor: 35.550 ??y 117 ??frente a 40.224 ??y 171 ?. En el análisis de sensibilidad, el inicio con ambrisentan presentó una diferencia de costes totales negativa y significativa: -4.982 ?; IC95%[-8.014 ?; -2.500 ?]; mientras que no se detectaron diferencias significativas en los AVAC: -0,0044; IC95%[-0,0189; 0,0101]. Conclusiones: El tratamiento secuencial de combinación de la HAP iniciado con ambrisentan, seguido de inhibidores de la fosfodiesterasa- 5 y prostanoides, proporciona resultados en salud comparables y menores costes que el tratamiento iniciado con bosentan.

Economic evaluation of levosimendan versus dobutamine for the treatment of acute heart failure in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Inodilators are the first-choice class of drugs for the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF). Levosimendan is a relatively recent inodilatory agent, presenting superior outcomes in comparison with traditional inotropes. METHODS: An economic evaluation of levosimendan for the treatment of AHF in Italy was performed. In a retrospective study conducted on patients with AHF admitted to a teaching hospital in Rome, two groups were derived from an observational registry: 147 patients treated with levosimendan and 145 treated with dobutamine. Follow-up was at 1 year after treatment. In the reference study looked at in this paper, treatment with levosimendan reduced mean length of stay (LOS) by 1.5 days (P<0.05). Reduction in the rehospitalization rate was 6.7% (P<0.05). Mortality rate at 1 month was reduced by 4.8% (P<0.05). RESULTS: Based on the reference study, a cost analysis from the hospital perspective was carried out. The incremental cost of treatment with levosimendan (€697) was equivalent to the incremental savings (€694), the latter being obtained from the reduction in LOS (€508) and rehospitalization rate (€186). CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of this study, and even neglecting all nonmonetary health gains as additional outcomes, levosimendan appears to be a competitive alternative compared with dobutamine for the treatment of AHF in the Italian hospital setting.