Obinutuzumab Plus Chemotherapy Compared with Rituximab Plus Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated Italian Patients with Advanced Follicular Lymphoma at Intermediate-High Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab (O-chemo) in comparison to rituximab (R-chemo) in patients with untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) at intermediate or high risk from an Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A previously developed four-state Markov model was adapted to estimate lifetime clinical outcomes and costs of Italian patients with advanced FL and an FL international predictive index score ≥2 in treatment with O-chemo and R-chemo. Life expectancy was derived from the GALLIUM and PRIMA clinical trials. Progression-free survival (PFS), early progressive disease (PD), and treatment duration were extrapolated by fitting parametric distributions to empirical data in GALLIUM and late PD to data in PRIMA. Expected survival was weighed by published utilities. Costs updated to 2020 Euros and health gains occurring after the first year were discounted at an annual 3% rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was carried out. RESULTS: O-chemo was associated with an incremental survival increase (0.97 life-years [LYs]), even when weighted for quality (0.88 quality-adjusted LYs [QALYs]), and incremental costs (around €15,000), driven by longer treatment during PFS state relative to R-chemo. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-utility ratio are both widely accepted by the Italian NHS (around €15,500/LY and €17,000/QALY gained, respectively). PSA simulations confirmed the robustness of results given sensible variations in assumptions. CONCLUSION: O-chemo has superior clinical efficacy compared to rituximab, and should be considered a cost-effective option in first-line treatment of patients with advanced FL at intermediate or high risk in Italy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are below the threshold considered affordable by developed countries.

Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) - 0.51 [- 0.81, - 0.20], p = 0.001; MD - 2.91 min [- 5.47, - 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.

Pharmacoeconomics of parenteral nutrition in surgical and critically ill patients receiving structured triglycerides in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A prior meta-analysis showed favorable metabolic effects of structured triglyceride (STG) lipid emulsions in surgical and critically ill patients compared with mixed medium-chain/long-chain triglycerides (MCT/LCT) emulsions. Limited data on clinical outcomes precluded pharmacoeconomic analysis. We performed an updated meta-analysis and developed a cost model to compare overall costs for STGs vs MCT/LCTs in Chinese hospitals. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: We searched Medline, Embase, Wanfang Data, the China Hospital Knowledge Database, and Google Scholar for clinical trials comparing STGs to mixed MCT/LCTs in surgical or critically ill adults published between October 10, 2013 and September 19, 2015. Newly identified studies were pooled with the prior studies and an updated meta-analysis was performed. A deterministic simulation model was used to compare the effects of STGs and mixed MCT/LCT's on Chinese hospital costs. RESULTS: The literature search identified six new trials, resulting in a total of 27 studies in the updated meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences favoring STGs were observed for cumulative nitrogen balance, pre- albumin and albumin concentrations, plasma triglycerides, and liver enzymes. STGs were also associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay (mean difference, -1.45 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.48 to -0.43; p=0.005) versus mixed MCT/LCTs. Cost analysis demonstrated a net cost benefit of ¥675 compared with mixed MCT/LCTs. CONCLUSIONS: STGs are associated with improvements in metabolic function and reduced length of hospitalization in surgical and critically ill patients compared with mixed MCT/LCT emulsions. Cost analysis using data from Chinese hospitals showed a corresponding cost benefit.