Modeling the impact of novel male contraceptive methods on reductions in unintended pregnancies in Nigeria, South Africa, and the United States.

OBJECTIVE: We modeled the potential impact of novel male contraceptive methods on averting unintended pregnancies in the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria. STUDY DESIGN: We used an established methodology for calculating the number of couple-years of protection provided by a given contraceptive method mix. We compared a "current scenario" (reflecting current use of existing methods in each country) against "future scenarios," (reflecting whether a male oral pill or a reversible vas occlusion was introduced) in order to estimate the impact on unintended pregnancies averted. Where possible, we based our assumptions on acceptability data from studies on uptake of novel male contraceptive methods. RESULTS: Assuming that only 10% of interested men would take up a novel male method and that users would comprise both switchers (from existing methods) and brand-new users of contraception, the model estimated that introducing the male pill or reversible vas occlusion would decrease unintended pregnancies by 3.5% to 5.2% in the United States, by 3.2% to 5% in South Africa, and by 30.4% to 38% in Nigeria. Alternative model scenarios are presented assuming uptake as high as 15% and as low as 5% in each location. Model results were sensitive to assumptions regarding novel method uptake and proportion of switchers vs. new users. CONCLUSION: Even under conservative assumptions, the introduction of a male pill or temporary vas occlusion could meaningfully contribute to averting unintended pregnancies in a variety of contexts, especially in settings where current use of contraception is low. IMPLICATIONS: Novel male contraceptives could play a meaningful role in averting unintended pregnancies in a variety of contexts. The potential impact is especially great in settings where current use of contraception is low and if novel methods can attract new contraceptive users.

Front-line treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted to determine the relative efficacy and safety of interventions for treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients, as comparative evidence is scarce. MATERIALS & METHODS: Relative treatment effects of progression-free survival, overall survival and safety outcomes were estimated via network meta-analysis based on data identified via systematic literature review. RESULTS: Ibrutinib was superior in all pairwise comparisons for progression-free survival (probability to be better [P] range: overall population: 69-100%; fludarabine-ineligible population: 69-100%) and overall survival (P range: overall: 89-100%; fludarabine-ineligible: 91-100%) and had the highest probability of being best for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: Ibrutinib provides superior benefit in survival and safety compared with other front-line treatments of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Ibrutinib Versus Physician's Choice and Idelalisib Plus Ofatumumab in Patients With Previously Treated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

PURPOSE: Treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL) are limited. Until recently, few effective treatment options existed, and even with the advent of new agents, studies evaluating comparative efficacy are scarce. In the Ibrutinib Versus Ofatumumab in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (RESONATE) Phase III study, ibrutinib, an oral, once-a-day, first-in-class covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with ofatumumab (PFS hazard ratio [HR] = 0.106 and OS HR = 0.369 [adjusted for crossover] at a median of 16 months' follow-up). We sought to establish the relative efficacy of ibrutinib versus other treatment options for patients with R/R CLL using indirect comparison methods. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify clinical trials sharing a common treatment arm with the RESONATE Phase III trial such that a network meta-analysis or indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) could be conducted. Two trials were identified, each using the same comparator (ofatumumab) as the RESONATE study. Two pairwise ITCs were conducted using the Bucher method to establish the relative treatment efficacy of ibrutinib versus (1) idelalisib plus ofatumumab in the first study and (2) physician's choice, defined as a mix of therapies commonly used in R/R CLL, in the second study. Odds ratios for these ITCs were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and HRs for PFS and OS. FINDINGS: A strong and consistent trend of superiority for ibrutinib was observed via these ITC models with idelalisib plus ofatumumab and physician's choice for ORR, PFS, and OS. Ibrutinib revealed prolonged PFS and OS versus comparators (PFS HR = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.11; and OS HR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.54), physician's choice (PFS HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66; and OS HR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.23-1.08), and idelalisib plus ofatumumab. These findings were robust and continued to favor ibrutinib when adjusting (where appropriate) for underlying differences in patient population between the trials. Some trial differences were not accounted for in the models and thus some limitations remain; however, consistency of results supports the overall findings. IMPLICATIONS: In a randomized Phase III study, ibrutinib significantly improved ORR, PFS, and OS in patients with R/R CLL versus ofatumumab. In ITC models that used ofatumumab as the common comparator, ibrutinib appears to have higher ORR and longer PFS and OS versus both idelalisib plus ofatumumab and physician's choice. In the absence of head-to-head studies and taking into consideration inherent limitations of ITCs, these models provide useful estimates of comparative efficacy.

Budget Impact of Adding Ivabradine to Standard of Care in Patients with Chronic Systolic Heart Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) costs $21 billion annually in direct health care costs, 80% of which is directly attributable to hospitalizations. The SHIFT clinical study demonstrated that ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) reduced HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared with SoC alone. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of ivabradine from a U.S. commercial payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model estimated the per-member-per month (PMPM) impact of introducing ivabradine to existing formularies by comparing a reference scenario (SoC) and a new drug scenario (ivabradine + SoC) in hypothetical 1 million-member commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. In both scenarios, U.S. claims data were used for the reference cumulative annual rates of hospitalizations (HF, non-HF cardiovascular [CV], and non-CV), and hospitalization rates were adjusted using SHIFT data. The model controlled for mortality risk using SHIFT and U.S. life table data, and hospitalization costs were obtained from U.S. claims data: HF-related = $37,507; non-HF CV = $28,951; and non-CV = $17,904. The annualized wholesale acquisition cost of ivabradine was $4,500, with baseline use for this new drug at 2%, increasing 2% per year. RESULTS: Based on the approved U.S. indication, approximately 2,000 commercially insured patients from a 1 million-member commercial plan were eligible to receive ivabradine. Ivabradine resulted in a PMPM cost savings of $0.01 and $0.04 in years 1 and 3 of the core model, respectively. After including the acquisition price for ivabradine, the model showed a decrease in total costs in the commercial ($991,256 and $474,499, respectively) and Medicare populations ($13,849,262 and $4,280,291, respectively) in year 1. This decrease was driven by ivabradine's reduction in hospitalization rates. For the core model, the estimated pharmacy-only PMPM in year 1 was $0.01 for the commercial population and $0.24 for the Medicare Advantage population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ivabradine to SoC led to lower average annual treatment costs. The negative PMPM budget impact indicates that ivabradine is an affordable option for U.S. payers. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Amgen. Patel is employed by Amgen; Kielhorn was employed by Amgen at the time of the study but is no longer affiliated with Amgen. Borer, Böhm, Ford, and Komajda have received scientific support, consultative fees, and/or speakers honoraria from Servier and Amgen in connection with SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. Borer also has received consultative fees from Celladon, Pfizer, ARMGO, Cardiorentis, Novartis, and Takeda USA. Kansal, Dorman, Krotneva, and Zheng are employees of Evidera, which was hired to assist with this study. Tavazzi has received research grants and consultation fees from Servier in connection with this study and has had advisory board memberships with Boston Scientific, Servier, Cardiorentis, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and CVie Therapeutics. Study concept and design were contributed by Dorman and Keilhorn, along with the other authors. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer oversaw collection of the data. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer (along with Karl Swedberg) formed the Executive Committee of SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. The manuscript was written by Kansal, along with the other authors, and revised by Borer and Patel, with assistance from the other authors.

The budget impact of introducing delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for treatment of relapse-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple sclerosis (MS) causes significant disability globally and is especially prevalent in Canada. Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF) is an orally administered disease-modifying treatment (DMT) for patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) that is currently on the market in the US, Australia, Canada, and Europe. A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to assess the financial consequences of introducing DMF for treatment of RRMS in Canada. METHODS: A BIM calculated the financial consequences of introducing DMF in Canada over 3 years based on RRMS prevalence, treatment market share, and clinical effects. RRMS prevalence in Canada was derived from published literature and natural relapse rates, and disease state distribution from clinical trial data. It was conservatively assumed that 100% of RRMS patients were treated with a DMT. DMF was assumed to absorb market share proportionally from the following current treatments: interferon beta-1a-IM, interferon beta-1a-SC, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate. Treatment efficacy, in terms of relapse rate reductions and treatment discontinuation rates, was determined from mixed treatment comparison. Treatment costs (including costs of acquisition, monitoring, and administration) and cost of relapse were considered. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the most sensitive input parameters. RESULTS: Over 3 years, the introduction of DMF resulted in an average annual increase of CAD417 per treated patient per year, with reductions in costs associated with relapses (CAD192/patient/year) partially offsetting increased drug acquisition costs (CAD602/patient/year). On a population level, the average annual cost increase was CAD24,654,237, a CAD 0.68 increase per population covered by the Canadian healthcare system. The main drivers of budget impact were drop-out rates, proportion of RRMS patients treated, and market share assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition costs of DMF for treatment of RRMS are predicted to be partially offset by reduced costs of relapses in the Canadian healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of DTG + ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC for first-line treatment of HIV-1 in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Data from the SINGLE trial demonstrated that 88% of treatment-naïve HIV-1 patients treated with dolutegravir and abacavir/lamivudine (DTG + ABC/3TC) achieved viral suppression at 48 weeks compared with 81% of patients treated with efavirenz/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EFV/TDF/FTC). It is unclear how this difference in short-term efficacy impacts long-term cost-effectiveness of these regimens. This study sought to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of DTG + ABC/3TC vs EFV/TDF/FTC from a US payer perspective. METHODS: This study is an individual discrete-event simulation which tracked the disease status and treatment pathway of HIV-1 patients. The model simulated treatment over a lifetime horizon by tracking change in patients' CD4 count, clinical events occurrence (opportunistic infections, cancer, and cardiovascular events), treatment switch, and death. The model included up to four lines of treatment. Baseline patient characteristics, efficacy, and safety of DTG + ABC/3TC and EFV/TDF/FTC were informed by data from the SINGLE trial. The efficacy of subsequent treatment lines, clinical event risks, mortality, cost, and utility inputs were based on literature and expert opinion. Outcomes were lifetime discounted medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG + ABC/3TC increased lifetime costs by $19,153 and per person survival by 0.12 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $158,890/QALY. ICERs comparing DTG + ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC remained above the traditional, US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained in all scenarios, and above $100,000 or $150,000/QALY gained in most scenarios. LIMITATIONS: Due to data limitations, the treatment patterns, CD4 count during viral rebound and treatment switch, viral rebound after trial end, and long-term adverse event-related treatment discontinuation were based on assumptions, presented to and approved by clinical experts. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG + ABC/3TC resulted in higher cost and only slightly increased QALYs over a lifetime, with an ICER that exceeded the standard cost-effectiveness threshold. This indicates that the incremental benefit in effectiveness associated with DTG + ABC/3TC may not be worth the incremental increase in costs.

Cost-effectiveness of DTG+ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC for first-line treatment of HIV-1 in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Data from the SINGLE trial demonstrated that 88% of treatment-naive HIV-1 patients treated with dolutegravir and abacavir/lamivudine (DTG+ABC/3TC) achieved viral suppression at 48 weeks compared with 81% of patients treated with efavirenz/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EFV/TDF/FTC). It is unclear how this difference in short-term efficacy impacts long-term cost-effectiveness of these regimens. This study sought to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of DTG+ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC from a US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual discrete-event simulation model tracked the disease status and treatment pathway of HIV-1 patients. The model simulated treatment over a lifetime horizon by tracking change in patients' CD4 count, occurrence of clinical events (opportunistic infections, cancer and cardiovascular events), treatment switch and death. The model included up to four lines of treatment. Baseline patient characteristics, efficacy and safety of DTG+ABC/3TC and EFV/TDF/FTC were informed by data from the SINGLE trial. The efficacy of subsequent lines of treatment, clinical event risks, mortality, cost and utility inputs were based on literature and expert opinion. Outcomes were lifetime medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (both discounted at 3% per annum) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG+ABC/3TC increased lifetime costs by $58,188 and per-person survival by 0.12 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $482,717/QALY. In sensitivity analyses testing conservative assumptions about EFV/TDF/FTC's efficacy beyond the trial period, ICERs comparing DTG+ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC remained high (lowest reported ICER of $365,662/QALY). In a scenario in which the price of EFV/TDF/FTC was reduced by 10% to reflect the potential for price reduction as EFV goes off patent, DTG+ABC/3TC's ICER compared to EFV/TDF/FTC was $600,916/QALY. When DTG+ABC/3TC's price was reduced by 10%, the resulting ICER comparing DTG+ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC was $302,171/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG+ABC/3TC resulted in substantially higher cost, slightly better QALY over lifetime, and ICERs far exceeding standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, indicating that the incremental benefit in efficacy associated with DTG+ABC/3TC may not be worth the incremental increase in costs.

Sports-related concussion: Anonymous survey of a collegiate cohort.

Studies suggest that a lack of standardized knowledge may lead to underreporting and undertreatment of sports-related concussion. However, there has been little work done to establish how this knowledge may affect athletes' behaviors toward reporting their concussions and removing themselves from play. We conducted an anonymous online survey to assess athletes' knowledge of signs and symptoms of concussion, and also sought to estimate the potential frequency of underreporting in a collegiate athlete cohort. Among 262 athletes who responded to the survey, 43% of those with a history of concussion reported that they had knowingly hidden symptoms of a concussion to stay in a game, and 22% of athletes overall indicated that they would be unlikely or very unlikely to report concussion symptoms to a coach or athletic trainer in the future. These data suggest that there may be a substantial degree of underreporting of concussion among collegiate athletes, despite most acknowledging that they have been formally educated about the risks of concussion.

Demand for male contraception.

The biological basis for male contraception was established decades ago, but despite promising breakthroughs and the financial burden men increasingly bear due to better enforcement of child support policies, no viable alternative to the condom has been brought to market. Men who wish to control their fertility must rely on female compliance with contraceptives, barrier methods, vasectomy or abstinence. Over the last 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has abandoned most of its investment in the field, leaving only nonprofit organisations and public entities pursuing male contraception. Leading explanations are uncertain forecasts of market demand pitted against the need for critical investments to demonstrate the safety of existing candidate products. This paper explores the developments and challenges in male contraception research. We produce preliminary estimates of potential market size for a safe and effective male contraceptive based on available data to estimate the potential market for a novel male method.