Positron Emission Tomography Imaging With [18F]flortaucipir and Postmortem Assessment of Alzheimer Disease Neuropathologic Changes.

Importance: Positron emission tomography (PET) may increase the diagnostic accuracy and confirm the underlying neuropathologic changes of Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective: To determine the accuracy of antemortem [18F]flortaucipir PET images for predicting the presence of AD-type tau pathology at autopsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study (A16 primary cohort) was conducted from October 2015 to June 2018 at 28 study sites (27 in US sites and 1 in Australia). Individuals with a terminal illness who were older than 50 years and had a projected life expectancy of less than 6 months were enrolled. All participants underwent [18F]flortaucipir PET imaging, and scans were interpreted by 5 independent nuclear medicine physicians or radiologists. Supplemental autopsy [18F]flortaucipir images and pathological samples were also collected from 16 historically collected cases. A second study (FR01 validation study) was conducted from March 26 to April 26, 2019, in which 5 new readers assessed the original PET images for comparison to autopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: [18F]flortaucipir PET images were visually assessed and compared with immunohistochemical tau pathology. An AD tau pattern of flortaucipir retention was assessed for correspondence with a postmortem B3-level (Braak stage V or VI) pathological pattern of tau accumulation and to the presence of amyloid-ß plaques sufficient to meet the criteria for high levels of AD neuropathological change. Success was defined as having at least 3 of the 5 readers above the lower bounds of the 95% CI for both sensitivity and specificity of 50% or greater. Results: A total of 156 patients were enrolled in the A16 study and underwent [18F]flortaucipir PET imaging. Of these, 73 died during the study, and valid autopsies were performed for 67 of these patients. Three autopsies were evaluated as test cases and removed from the primary cohort (n = 64). Of the 64 primary cohort patients, 34 (53%) were women and 62 (97%) were white; mean (SD) age was 82.5 (9.6) years; and 49 (77%) had dementia, 1 (2%) had mild cognitive impairment, and 14 (22%) had normal cognition. Prespecified success criteria were met for the A16 primary cohort. The flortaucipir PET scans predicted a B3 level of tau pathology, with sensitivity ranging from 92.3% (95% CI, 79.7%-97.3%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 91.0%-100.0%) and specificity ranging from 52.0% (95% CI, 33.5%-70.0%) to 92.0% (95% CI, 75.0%-97.8%). A high level of AD neuropathological change was predicted with sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI, 82.7%-98.5%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 90.8%-100.0%) and specificity of 50.0% (95% CI, 32.1%-67.9%) to 92.3% (95% CI, 75.9%-97.9%). The FR01 validation study also met prespecified success criteria. Addition of the supplemental autopsy data set and 3 test cases, which comprised a total of 82 patients and autopsies for both the A16 and FR01 studies, resulted in improved specificity and comparable overall accuracy. Among the 156 enrolled participants, 14 (9%) experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that PET imaging with [18F]flortaucipir could be used to identify the density and distribution of AD-type tau pathology and the presence of high levels of AD neuropathological change, supporting a neuropathological diagnosis of AD.

Coste por paciente con respuesta a romiplostim y rituximab en el tratamiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria en España / Cost-per-responder analysis comparing romiplostim to rituximab in the treatment of adult primary immune thrombocytopenia in Spain

Fundamento y objetivo: Romiplostim, agonista del receptor de la trombopoyetina, está aprobado para el tratamiento de segunda línea en pacientes con trombocitopenia inmune primaria (PTI). El tratamiento con rituximab no es infrecuente, aunque esta indicación no esté recogida en la ficha técnica. Este análisis compara el coste por paciente respondedor a romiplostim frente a rituximab en España. Materiales y método: Se ha diseñado un modelo para estimar el coste de 6 meses de tratamiento por paciente que responde (recuento plaquetario ≥ 50 × 109/l). Este modelo toma las referencias conforme a los datos publicados más sólidos. Los pacientes tratados con romiplostim recibieron inyecciones semanales; los pacientes tratados con rituximab recibieron 4 infusiones intravenosas semanales. Los precios se obtuvieron de las listas de reembolso españolas. Los pacientes sin respuesta incurrieron en gastos por el tratamiento de episodios relacionados con sangrado (ERS), tal como se notificó en los ensayos clínicos. La utilización de recursos médicos y la práctica clínica se basaron en las guías de tratamiento españolas y fueron validadas por expertos locales. Resultados: Las tasas de respuesta para romiplostim y rituximab fueron del 83 y 62,5%, y el coste medio por paciente fue de 16.289 Euros y 13.459 Euros, respectivamente. Con rituximab el coste por paciente respondedor fue un 10% superior (21.535 Euros) comparado con romiplostim (19.625 Euros). Romiplostim redujo el coste de administración de fármacos, el uso de inmunoglobulina intravenosa y los costes relacionados con ERS comparado con rituximab. Conclusiones: Romiplostim representaría una opción terapéutica eficiente en comparación con rituximab para el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con PTI crónica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud español (AU)

Background and objective: Romiplostim, a thrombopoietin-receptor agonist, is approved for second-line use in idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) patients where surgery is contraindicated. Anti-CD20 rituximab, an immunosuppressant, is currently used off-label. This analysis compared the cost per responder for romiplostim versus rituximab in Spain. Materials and method: A decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the 6-month cost per responding patient (achieving a platelet count ≥ 50 × 109/l) according to the most robust published data. A systematic literature review was performed to extract response rates from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. Romiplostim patients received weekly injections; rituximab patients received 4 weekly intravenous infusions. Medical resource costs were obtained from Spanish reimbursement lists. Treatment non-responders incurred bleeding-related event (BRE) management costs as reported in clinical trials. Medical resource utilization and clinical practice were based on Spanish treatment guidelines and validated by local clinical experts. Results: The literature review identified phase 3 romiplostim trials with a response rate of 83%. Due to a lack of phase 3 controlled rituximab trials, a systematic review of studies was selected as the best source, reporting a response rate of 62.5%. The mean cost per patient for romiplostim was 16,289 Euros and 13,459 Euros for rituximab. Rituximab resulted in a 10% higher cost per responder (21,535 Euros versus 19,625 Euros for romiplostim). Romiplostim use reduced drug administration, intravenous immunoglobulin, and bleeding-related costs compared to rituximab. Conclusions: Due to its high level of efficacy leading to lower BRE costs, romiplostim represents an efficient use of resources for adult ITP patients in the Spanish Healthcare System (AU)

Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Everolimus and axitinib are approved in the US to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure on sunitinib or sorafenib, and one prior systemic therapy (e.g., sunitinib), respectively. Two indirect comparisons performed to evaluate progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus vs axitinib suggested similar efficacy between the two treatments. Therefore, this analysis compares the lifetime costs of these two therapies among sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients from a US payer perspective. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients and estimate the cost of treating patients with everolimus vs axitinib. The following health states were included: stable disease without adverse events (AEs), stable disease with AEs, disease progression (PD), and death. The model included the following resources: active treatments, post-progression treatments, adverse events, physician and nurse visits, scans and tests, and palliative care. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a US claims database analysis. Additionally, a 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs, and the robustness of the model results was tested by conducting sensitivity analyses, including those on dosing scheme and post-progression treatment costs. RESULTS: Base case results demonstrated that patients treated with everolimus cost an average of $12,985 (11%) less over their lifetimes than patients treated with axitinib. The primary difference in costs was related to active treatment, which was largely driven by axitinib's higher dose intensity. RESULTS remained consistent across sensitivity analyses for AE and PD treatment costs, as well as dose intensity and discount rates. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that everolimus likely leads to lower lifetime costs than axitinib for sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients in the US.

[Cost-per-responder analysis comparing romiplostim to rituximab in the treatment of adult primary immune thrombocytopenia in Spain]. / Coste por paciente con respuesta a romiplostim y rituximab en el tratamiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria en España.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Romiplostim, a thrombopoietin-receptor agonist, is approved for second-line use in idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) patients where surgery is contraindicated. Anti-CD20 rituximab, an immunosuppressant, is currently used off-label. This analysis compared the cost per responder for romiplostim versus rituximab in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the 6-month cost per responding patient (achieving a platelet count≥50×10(9)/l) according to the most robust published data. A systematic literature review was performed to extract response rates from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. Romiplostim patients received weekly injections; rituximab patients received 4 weekly intravenous infusions. Medical resource costs were obtained from Spanish reimbursement lists. Treatment non-responders incurred bleeding-related event (BRE) management costs as reported in clinical trials. Medical resource utilization and clinical practice were based on Spanish treatment guidelines and validated by local clinical experts. RESULTS: The literature review identified phase 3 romiplostim trials with a response rate of 83%. Due to a lack of phase 3 controlled rituximab trials, a systematic review of studies was selected as the best source, reporting a response rate of 62.5%. The mean cost per patient for romiplostim was €16,289 and €13,459 for rituximab. Rituximab resulted in a 10% higher cost per responder (€21,535 versus €19,625 for romiplostim). Romiplostim use reduced drug administration, intravenous immunoglobulin, and bleeding-related costs compared to rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its high level of efficacy leading to lower BRE costs, romiplostim represents an efficient use of resources for adult ITP patients in the Spanish Healthcare System.

Cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs sunitinib in treating patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (Afinitor) and sunitinib (Sutent) were recently approved to treat patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). (Afinitor is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; Sutent is a registered trademark of Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA.) This analysis examined the projected cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs sunitinib in this setting from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of patients with advanced, progressive pNET and to estimate the cost per life-year gained (LYG) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when treating with everolimus vs sunitinib. Efficacy data were based on a weight-adjusted indirect comparison of the agents using phase 3 trial data. Model health states included: stable disease with no adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Therapy costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs such as physician visits, tests, hospitalizations, and adverse event costs were obtained from literature and/or primary research. Utility inputs were based on primary research. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model's robustness. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, everolimus was associated with an incremental 0.448 LYG (0.304 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $12,673, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,281/LYG ($41,702/QALY gained). The ICER fell within the cost per QALY range for many widely used oncology drugs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that, overall, there is a trend that everolimus is cost-effective compared to sunitinib in this setting. LIMITATIONS: Results of the indirect analysis were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Assumptions that treatment patterns are the same across therapies may not represent real-world practice. CONCLUSIONS: While the analysis is limited by its reliance on an indirect comparison of two phase 3 studies, everolimus is expected to be cost-effective relative to sunitinib in advanced, progressive pNET.