Modified Delphi study of decision-making around treatment sequencing in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Existing effectiveness models of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) evaluate a single line of treatment; however, RRMS patients often receive more than one lifetime DMD. To develop treatment sequencing models grounded in clinical reality, a detailed understanding of the decision-making process regarding DMD switching is required. Using a modified Delphi approach, this study attempted to reach consensus on modelling assumptions. METHODS: A modified Delphi technique was conducted based on three rounds of discussion amongst an international group of 10 physicians with expertise in RRMS. RESULTS: The panel agreed that the expected time from disease onset to Expanded Disability Status Scale 6.0 is a proxy for disease severity as well as suitable for classifying severity into three groups. A modelled clinical decision rule regarding the timing of switching should contain at least the time between relapses, magnetic resonance imaging outcomes and the occurrence/risk of adverse events. The experts agreed that the assessment of adverse event risk for a DMD is dependent on disease severity, with more risks accepted when the patient's disease is more severe. The effectiveness of DMDs conditional on their position in a sequence and/or disease duration was discussed: there was consensus on some statements regarding this topic but these were accompanied by a high degree of uncertainty due to considerable knowledge gaps. CONCLUSION: Useful insights into the medical decision-making process regarding treatment sequencing in RRMS were obtained. The knowledge gained has been used to validate the main modelling concepts and to further generate clinically meaningful results.

Cost-minimization analysis of alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab for the treatment of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands.

AIM: In active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients requiring second-line treatment, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZiN) has not stated a preference for either alemtuzumab, fingolimod, or natalizumab. The aim was to give healthcare decision-makers insight into the differences in cost accumulation over time between alemtuzumab-with a unique, non-continuous treatment schedule-and fingolimod and natalizumab for second-line treatment of active RRMS patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: In line with ZiN's assessment, a cost-minimization analysis was performed from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Resource use was derived from hospital protocols and summaries of product characteristics, and validated by two MS specialists. Unit costs were based on national tariffs and guidelines. Robustness of the base case results was verified with multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to fingolimod and natalizumab from, respectively, 3.3 and 2.8 years since treatment initiation onwards. At 5 years, total discounted costs per patient of alemtuzumab were €79,717, followed by fingolimod with €110,044 and natalizumab with €122,238, resulting in cost savings of €30,327 and €42,522 for alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab, respectively. Key drivers of the model are drug acquisition costs and the proportions of patients that do not require further alemtuzumab treatment after either two, three, or four courses. LIMITATIONS: No treatment discontinuation and associated switching between treatments were incorporated. Consequences of JC virus seropositivity while continuing natalizumab treatment (e.g. additional monitoring) were omitted from the base case. CONCLUSION: The current cost-minimization analysis demonstrates that, from the Dutch healthcare perspective, treating active RRMS patients with alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to second-line alternatives fingolimod and natalizumab from ∼3 years since treatment initiation onwards. After 5 years, alemtuzumab's cost savings are estimated at €30k compared to fingolimod and €43k compared to natalizumab.

Introduction of enteral feeding in neonates on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after evaluation of intestinal permeability changes.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Neonates meeting criteria for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) often suffer from variable periods of hypoxia. During ECMO, starvation of the gut is common practice in many centres as splanchnic ischemia results in loss of intestinal integrity, which in turn predisposes for bacterial translocation and sepsis and eventually necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and multiorgan failure. However, minimal enteral feeding is thought to be of benefit in the critically ill. Data on intestinal integrity in newborns on ECMO and the effects of enteral nutrition are not available. This study prospectively evaluates the changes in small intestinal integrity in 16 neonatal ECMO patients. METHODS: With 2-day intervals, excretion percentages of lactulose/L-rhamnose (nonmediated diffusion), D-xylose (passive), and 3-O-methyl-D-glucose (active carrier-mediated transport) were measured by gas-liquid chromatography in a 4-hour urine sample. After obtaining baseline data in nine patients, enteral feeding was started in the next seven patients between the third and the ninth day of ECMO. RESULTS: Thirteen patients had increased lactulose/L-rhamnose ratios (>0.05) consistent with increased intestinal permeability. In three patients the lactulose/L-rhamnose ratios were within the normal range. D-xylose excretion percentages were normal (or slightly increased) in 11 patients consistent with normal (or increased) passive carrier-mediated transport. 3-O-methyl-D-glucose excretion percentages were decreased (<10%) in all but one patient, consistent with decreased active carrier-mediated transport. After introduction of enteral nutrition no significant changes of these parameters were seen. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that intestinal integrity is compromised in neonates on ECMO and that introduction of enteral nutrition does not result in further deterioration. This conclusion does not support the practice of withholding enteral nutrition in critically ill newborns supported by ECMO.