Cost-Utility Analysis of Ravulizumab Compared with Eculizumab in Adult Patients with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria.

BACKGROUND: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, characterized by intravascular hemolysis and venous thrombosis, can be managed with eculizumab, an inhibitor of the complement system; however, patients may periodically experience breakthrough hemolysis. Ravulizumab is a newly approved treatment for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria that may reduce breakthrough hemolysis risk, thus improving health-related quality of life and reducing treatment costs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the costs and benefit of treatment with ravulizumab vs eculizumab in adult patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a semi-Markov model, informed by clinical experts. Lifetime costs and benefit (quality-adjusted life-years) (both discounted at 3% per annum) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated, over a lifetime horizon. Results are reported for an entire treated population and subgroups of eculizumab treatment history. Scenario analyses were characterized by assumptions of non-inferiority between treatments, in terms of breakthrough hemolysis incidence and blood transfusion requirements, and of variations in eculizumab dosing adjustments used in response to breakthrough hemolysis. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis for the overall population, there was a positive impact on health-related quality of life (quality-adjusted life-year gain of 1.67) and costs were lower (- $1,673,465), for ravulizumab vs eculizumab. This led to a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (- $1,000,818, indicating cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Health-related quality-of-life improvement and cost savings were also observed in all cohorts and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, ravulizumab is associated with improved health-related quality of life and provides a large cost saving from the perspective of a US payer, when compared with eculizumab.

Cost associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a retrospective claims data analysis in Germany.

AIM: Quantify hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) costs in German patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL). METHODS: The primary outcome was direct and indirect costs in patients with ALL/DLBCL/FL who received HSCT between 2010 and 2014. Costs were evaluated two to four quarters before to eight quarters after HSCT. RESULTS: Among 258 patients with HSCT, direct costs were €290,125/patient (pediatric ALL), €246,266/patient (adult ALL), €230,399/patient (DLBCL/FL allogeneic) and €107,457/patient (DLBCL/FL autologous). Indirect costs with HSCT were €52,939/patient (adult ALL), €20,285/patient (DLBCL/FL allogeneic) and €29,881/patient (DLBCL/FL autologous). CONCLUSION: Direct and indirect costs associated with HSCT are substantial for patients with ALL, DLBCL and FL. Novel therapies that reduce HSCT use could reduce medical costs.

Economic burden following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

This study describes short-term and long-term healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs following an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in adult patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in a real-world setting. Among 101 patients with DLBCL receiving an allogeneic HSCT, HRU and direct healthcare costs for up to three years after the allogeneic HSCT are described. HRU and costs were substantial, with the most intensive HRU and highest healthcare costs observed during the first year after HSCT (38 inpatient days; 68 days with office visits and average healthcare costs of $455,741). Although HRU and costs decreased over time, they remained high even in the third year after HSCT (four inpatient days; 27 days with office visits and average healthcare costs of $72,957). Overall, this study showed that the economic burden following an allogeneic HSCT in DLBCL patients is significant.

Five-year direct costs of acute lymphoblastic leukemia pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplant.

AIM: To assess the 5-year healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and direct payer costs following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) in acute lymphoblastic leukemia pediatric patients using data from two large US administrative databases. PATIENTS & METHODS: Among the 209 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, HRU and costs were described over the up to 5 years after the HSCT. RESULTS: HRU and costs following the HSCTs were substantial. The highest average costs and most intensive HRU were observed within the first year following the HSCTs (49 outpatient visits; 29 laboratory service visits; 68 inpatient days), with a first year cost of US$683,099 and substantial costs over the following years. CONCLUSION: HRU and direct costs associated with allogeneic HSCTs are substantial.

Role of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Assessment of Central Nervous System Agents.

This work aimed to provide an understanding of the current use and regulatory acceptability of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in labeling claims for central nervous system (CNS) agents. A subset of CNS agents was identified from all New Drug Approvals and Biologic License Applications for new drugs approved in the US from January 2006 to June 2012. Clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) (62%) and PROs (38%) were the most widely used primary outcome measures. The PROs were frequently used in combination with ClinROs. Twelve PRO claims were granted across 41% of CNS drug approvals: 83%, symptoms; 17%, functioning. The PROs are frequently utilized as primary and secondary end points in CNS agents, and labeling claims are granted at higher levels than for non-CNS agents (41% vs 24%, respectively). These claims are granted at a lower rate than expected, given that direct patient input may lend valuable insight to treatment impacts in most CNS diseases.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab in treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) causing visual impairment: evidence from the RESTORE trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab as either monotherapy or combined with laser therapy, compared with laser monotherapy, in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) causing visual impairment from a UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model simulated long-term outcomes and costs of treating DME in one eye (BCVA ≤75 letters) based on data from the RESTORE Phase III trial. Outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for a 15-year time horizon based on 12-month follow-up from RESTORE and published long-term data. Costs included treatment, disease monitoring, visual impairment and blindness (at 2010 price levels). RESULTS: Ranibizumab monotherapy resulted in a 0.17 QALY gain at an incremental cost of £4191 relative to laser monotherapy, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £24 028. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 64% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Combined ranibizumab and laser therapy resulted in a 0.13 QALY gain at an incremental cost of £4695 relative to laser monotherapy (ICER £36 106; 42% probability of ICER <£30 000). CONCLUSIONS: Based on RESTORE 1-year follow-up data, ranibizumab monotherapy appears to be cost-effective relative to laser monotherapy, the current standard of care. Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy is less certain. Ongoing studies will further inform on disease progression and the need for additional ranibizumab treatment.

Cost effectiveness of treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness in people aged ≥50 years. Wet AMD in particular has a major impact on patient quality of life and imposes substantial burdens on healthcare systems. This systematic review examined the cost-effectiveness data for current therapeutic options for wet AMD. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for all articles reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses of wet AMD treatments. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all wet AMD health technology assessments (HTAs). Overall, 44 publications were evaluated in full and included in this review. A broad range of cost-effectiveness analyses were identified for the most commonly used therapies for wet AMD (pegaptanib, ranibizumab and photodynamic therapy [PDT] with verteporfin). Three studies evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD. A small number of analyses of other treatments, such as laser photocoagulation and antioxidant vitamins, were also found. Ranibizumab was consistently shown to be cost effective for wet AMD in comparison with all the approved wet AMD therapies (four of the five studies identified showed ranibizumab was cost effective vs usual care, PDT or pegaptanib); however, there was considerable variation in the methodology for cost-effectiveness modelling between studies. Findings from the HTAs supported those from the PubMed and EMBASE searches; of the seven HTAs that included ranibizumab, six (including HTAs for Australia, Canada and the UK) concluded that ranibizumab was cost effective for the treatment of wet AMD; most compared ranibizumab with PDT and/or pegaptanib. By contrast, HTAs at best generally recommended pegaptanib or PDT for restricted use in subsets of patients with wet AMD. In the literature analyses, pegaptanib was found to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care (including PDT) or no treatment in one of five studies; the other four studies found pegaptanib was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on the stage of disease and time horizon. PDT was shown to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care or no treatment in five of nine studies; two studies showed that PDT was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on baseline visual acuity, and two showed that PDT was not cost effective. We identified no robust studies that properly evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of the rivastigmine transdermal patch for Alzheimer's disease in the UK using MMSE- and ADL-based models.

OBJECTIVE: Assess long-term cost-effectiveness of rivastigmine patch in Alzheimer's disease (AD) management in the UK, using cognitive and functional models based on clinical trial efficacy data. METHODS: Incremental costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) associated with rivastigmine patch and capsule treatment versus best supportive care (BSC) were calculated using two economic models, one based solely on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, and one also incorporating activities of daily living (ADL) scores. The clinical pathway was populated with data from a clinical trial of rivastigmine patch (9.5 mg/24 h) and capsules (12 mg/day) versus placebo. Costs were based on the UK health and social care costs and basic UK National Health Service (NHS) prices. Disease progression was modelled beyond the trial period over 5 years using published equations to predict natural decline in AD patients. Base case costing variables included drugs, clinical monitoring, and institutionalization. RESULTS: The MMSE model estimated incremental costs per QALY of £10 579 for rivastigmine patch and £15 154 for capsule versus BSC. The MMSE-ADL model estimated incremental costs per QALY of £9114 for rivastigmine patch and £13 758 for capsules. The main difference between the models was a greater number of institutionalized days avoided for rivastigmine versus BSC estimated by the MMSE-ADL model. CONCLUSIONS: Both the MMSE and MMSE-ADL models suggest that rivastigmine patch and capsules are cost-effective treatments versus BSC. Incorporating ADL evidence makes a marginal but important difference to estimates in this case. Future economic evaluations of AD treatment should include measures of both cognition and functioning.

The association between adherence to levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone therapy and healthcare utilization and costs among patients with Parkinson's disease: a retrospective claims-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adherence to long-term therapies is common and may potentially have adverse consequences on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between adherence to levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone therapy and healthcare utilization and costs in patients with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: A retrospective historical cohort study, conducted in the US, using a health insurance claims database, with data spanning from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005. Subjects included patients with Parkinson's disease who were treated with levodopa (L), carbidopa (C) and entacapone (E) either as separate tablets (LC + E) or as a single-tablet formulation (LCE). The association between satisfactory adherence (defined as 'proportion of days covered' for LCE or LC + E during 1-year follow-up ≥80%) and healthcare utilization and costs was examined using multivariate regression to control for pretreatment adherence to LC and other patient characteristics. RESULTS: Compared with unsatisfactory adherence (n = 598), satisfactory adherence (n = 617) was associated with 39% fewer Parkinson's disease-related hospitalizations (95% CI 20, 54; p < 0.001), 47% lower all-cause inpatient costs (95% CI 18, 65; p = 0.004) and 18% lower all-cause total costs (95% CI 11, 24; p < 0.001). On an adjusted basis, all-cause total costs were $US3508 less for those with satisfactory versus unsatisfactory adherence. In both the LC + E and LCE groups, satisfactory adherence was associated with significant reductions in all-cause hospitalizations (39% and 46%, respectively), and all-cause total costs (10% and 31%, respectively). The association between adherence and total healthcare costs was stronger for patients receiving LCE. CONCLUSIONS: Better adherence to levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone therapy is associated with lower healthcare utilization and costs. Non-adherence to LCE is associated with a greater increase in costs than non-adherence to LC + E. Efforts should be made to ensure adherence to both therapies.

Adherence with levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone versus levodopa/carbidopa and entacapone as separate tablets in patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that single-tablet formulations are associated with improved adherence versus the same components taken as separate tablets. The objective of this study was to compare adherence in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) receiving levodopa therapy as levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone tablets (LCE) versus levodopa/carbidopa (LC) tablets and entacapone (E) as separate tablets (LC and E). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using a large health insurance claims database. Subjects included persons with a PD diagnosis who were receiving LC without E and then received either an add-on therapy with E as a separate tablet (LC and E) or LCE as one tablet (LCE). The primary study outcome was treatment adherence, estimated from pharmacy refills based on the 'percent of days covered' (PDC) with LCE or LC and E during follow-up and compared for patients receiving LCE and LC and E using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses controlling for differences between groups in baseline characteristics, including pre-index dosage of and adherence with LC, receipt of LCE (n = 388) was associated with 79% lower mean non-adherence during follow-up (95% CI: 73-83%; p < 0.001) versus LC and E (n = 823), 86% lower odds of unsatisfactory adherence (95% CI: 80-91%; p < 0.001), and a 26% lower risk of discontinuation (95% CI: 6-42%; p < 0.013). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational study with the inherent potential for selection bias. Pharmacy claims may not provide an accurate estimate of adherence. Requiring subjects to have a certain number of prescriptions before and after the index date may yield a sample that is not representative of all patients initiating levodopa therapy in typical clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Better adherence with LCE may have important implications for maintaining function in patients receiving chronic oral levodopa therapy. Further research is needed to confirm these results and examine the association between improved adherence and clinical and economic outcomes.

Alzheimer's disease treatment: assessing caregiver preferences for mode of treatment delivery.

INTRODUCTION: Management of patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) can exert a substantial burden upon caregivers. As new modes of treatment administration are developed, it is important to assess caregiver satisfaction and preference in a standardized manner. This study describes the development of the Alzheimer's Disease Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) to assess AD caregivers' satisfaction with and preference for patch or capsule treatments in AD patients. METHODS: Twenty-five published articles (1987-2002) were reviewed to identify potential ADCPQ domains. Three caregiver focus groups (n=24) were conducted to develop a first draft of the questionnaire. After evaluating the acceptance of ADCPQ to caregivers through in-depth interviews (n=10), its psychometric properties were assessed using data from 986 patients enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, four-arm, placebo- and active-controlled, 24-week trial. RESULTS: Focus groups indicated that caregivers expressed dissatisfaction with current AD treatment routines including limitations related to: efficacy, administration schedule, number of pills, adherence to treatment, side effects, and taking pills. In-depth interviews with caregivers found the ADCPQ to be comprehensible with an acceptable layout. The resultant ADCPQ comprises three modules: A) baseline, 11 items assessing treatment expectations; B) week 8, 33 items on satisfaction and preferences with treatment options; C) week 24, 10 items assessing overall opinions of treatment options. Missing data per item was low (

Predicting time to nursing home placement based on activities of daily living scores--a modelling analysis using data on Alzheimer's disease patients receiving rivastigmine or donepezil.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of activities of daily living (ADL) scores on the risk of nursing home placement (NHP) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. SETTING: Models predicting NHP for AD patients have depended on cognitive deterioration as the primary measure. However, there is increased recognition that both patient functioning and cognition are predictive of disease progression. METHODS: Using the database from a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial of rivastigmine and donepezil, two treatments indicated for AD, Cox regression models were constructed to predict the risk of NHP using age, gender, ADL and MMSE (Mini-Mental State Examination) scores as independent variables. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50-85 years, with MMSE scores of 10-20, and a diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer type. RESULTS: Cox regression analyses indicated that being female, older age, lower ADL score at baseline, and deterioration in ADL all significantly increased the risk of NHP. Over 2 years, risk of NHP increased by 3% for each 1-point deterioration in ADL score independent of cognition. CONCLUSION: Data analyses from this long-term clinical trial established that daily functioning is an important predictor of time to NHP. Further research may be required to confirm whether this finding translates to the real world.

Outcomes, utilization, and costs among thalassemia and sickle cell disease patients receiving deferoxamine therapy in the United States.

Deferoxamine mesylate (DFO) reduces morbidity and mortality associated with transfusional iron overload. Data on the utilization and costs of care among U.S. patients receiving DFO in typical clinical practice are limited however. This was a retrospective study using a large U.S. health insurance claims database spanning 1/97-12/04 and representing 40 million members in >70 health plans. Study subjects (n = 145 total, 106 sickle cell disease [SCD], 39 thalassemia) included members with a diagnosis of thalassemia or SCD, one or more transfusions (whole blood or red blood cells), and one or more claims for DFO. Mean transfusion episodes were 12 per year. Estimated mean DFO use was 307 g/year. Central venous access devices were required by 20% of patients. Cardiac disease was observed in 16% of patients. Mean total medical costs were $59,233 per year including $10,899 for DFO and $8,722 for administration of chelation therapy. In multivariate analyses, potential complications of iron overload were associated with significantly higher medical care costs. In typical clinical practice, use of DFO in patients with thalassemia and SCD receiving transfusions is low. Administration costs represent a large proportion of the cost of chelation therapy. Potential complications of iron overload are associated with increased costs.

Consequences and costs of noncompliance with iron chelation therapy in patients with transfusion-dependent thalassemia: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with thalassemia major require iron chelation therapy (ICT) to prevent complications from transfusional iron overload. Deferoxamine is effective, but requires administration as a slow continuous subcutaneous or intravenous infusion five to seven times per week. Deferiprone is a three-times-daily oral iron chelator, but has limited availability in the United States. Deferasirox is a once-daily oral iron chelator that was approved in the United States in 2005 for patients older than 2 years of age with transfusional iron overload. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Published evidence on rates of compliance with ICT and the association between compliance, and the incidence and costs of complications of iron overload, in patients with thalassemia major was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were identified reporting data on compliance with ICT, including 7 that examined deferoxamine only, 6 that examined deferiprone only, and 5 that compared deferoxamine and deferiprone; no studies reporting compliance with deferasirox were identified. In studies of deferoxamine only, estimated mean compliance ranged from 59 to 78 percent. Studies of deferiprone generally reported better compliance, ranging from 79 to 98 percent. Results of comparative studies of deferoxamine and deferiprone suggest that compliance may be better with oral therapy. Numerous studies demonstrate that that poor compliance with ICT results in increased risk of cardiac disease and endocrinopathies, as well as lower survival. Although data on the costs of noncompliance are limited, a recent model-based study estimated the lifetime costs of inadequate compliance with deferoxamine to be $33,142. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate compliance with ICT in thalassemia major is common and results in substantial morbidity and mortality, as well as increased costs.

Caregiver preference for rivastigmine patches versus capsules for the treatment of Alzheimer disease.

Alzheimer disease (AD) has a significant impact on caregivers. Administering and managing medications is one of their many daily tasks. More effective modes of drug administration may benefit patient and caregiver, and may improve compliance. A prospective outcome of the IDEAL (Investigation of TransDermal Exelon in ALzheimer's disease) trial was to evaluate caregiver preference for rivastigmine patches compared with capsules. The 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled IDEAL trial investigated once-daily rivastigmine patches vs twice-daily capsules in moderate AD patients. Caregivers rated patch adhesion throughout. The AD Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) assessed patch vs capsule from caregivers' perspective, based on expectations, preferences, and satisfaction with treatment. A total of 1,059 caregivers completed the ADCPQ while their respective patients were on study drug. More than 70% of caregivers preferred the patch to capsules overall. The patch was preferred to capsules with respect to ease of use (p < 0.0001) and ease of following the schedule (p < 0.0001). Caregivers indicated greater satisfaction overall (p < 0.0001) and less interference with daily life (p < 0.01) with the patch vs capsules. The preference substudy of the IDEAL trial demonstrated that caregivers of AD patients preferred patches to capsules for drug delivery. Preference for the patch may indicate reduced caregiver stress, substantiated by greater satisfaction and less interference with daily life. These benefits may lead to improved compliance.

Cost-effectiveness of letrozole versus tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy in hormone receptor-positive postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98, a randomized, double-blind trial comparing 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival by 19% and reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence by 28% and distant recurrence by 27%. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with 5 years of initial adjuvant therapy with letrozole versus tamoxifen from a US health care system perspective. Probabilities and costs of breast cancer recurrence and treatment-related adverse events and health-state utilities were based on published results of BIG 1-98 and other published studies. Costs and QALYs were estimated over the lifetime of a cohort of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, aged 60 years at initiation of therapy. In our base case, we assumed that benefits of letrozole on risk of breast cancer recurrence are maintained for 5 years after therapy discontinuation ("carry-over effect") and examined the effects of this assumption on results in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, letrozole yields an additional 0.409 QALYs versus tamoxifen at an additional cost of $9705, yielding a cost per QALY gained for letrozole versus tamoxifen of $23,743 (95% confidence interval, $14,087-$51,129). Assuming no carry-over effects, letrozole yields 0.264 QALYs at a cost of $10,341, for a cost per QALY gained of $39,098 (95% confidence interval, $23,968- $83,501). CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, initial adjuvant treatment with letrozole is cost-effective from the US health care system perspective.

Valsartan versus lisinopril or extended-release metoprolol in preventing cardiovascular and renal events in patients with hypertension.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare cardiovascular and renal events in patients with hypertension receiving the angiotensin II-receptor blocker valsartan versus those receiving the angiotensin-converting-enzyme lisinopril or the beta-blocker metoprolol succinate in an extended-release formulation. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using a health insurance claims database spanning the period from January 1997 through December 2003 and representing approximately 40 million members enrolled in over 70 health plans across the United States. Study subjects included all persons in the database with two or more outpatient prescriptions for valsartan, lisinopril, or extended-release metoprolol and two or more prior claims with a diagnosis of hypertension. Those with a history of major cardiovascular or renal events (diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac arrest; coronary revascularization procedure; diagnosis of renal failure; or dialysis or kidney transplantation) or using other antihypertensive medications except diuretics during the 12 months before treatment with valsartan, lisinopril, or extended-release metoprolol were excluded. Risks of major cardiovascular or renal event during follow-up were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 29,357 antihypertensive patients were identified who initiated therapy with valsartan (n = 6,645), lisinopril (n = 17,320), or extended-release metoprolol (n = 5,392). In multivariate analyses, therapy with valsartan was associated with a significantly lower risk of a major cardiovascular or renal event versus extended-release metoprolol (heart rate [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.87; p = 0.0015). Patients receiving valsartan had a nominally lower risk of a major cardiovascular or renal event than those receiving lisinopril, although this difference was not statistically significant (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.07; p = 0.1987). CONCLUSION: Results of this observational study suggest that the use of valsartan may reduce the risk of major cardiovascular and renal events compared with extended-release metoprolol.

Treatment interruptions and non-adherence with imatinib and associated healthcare costs: a retrospective analysis among managed care patients with chronic myelogenous leukaemia.

OBJECTIVES: Identify treatment interruptions and non-adherence with imatinib; examine the clinical and patient characteristics related to treatment interruptions and non-adherence; and estimate the association between treatment interruptions and non-adherence with imatinib and healthcare costs for US managed care patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). METHODS: This retrospective analysis utilised electronic healthcare claims data from a US managed care provider. Adult patients with CML (as determined by International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] diagnosis code) were identified who began treatment with imatinib from 1 June 2001 through 31 March 2004. Treatment interruptions (i.e. failure to refill imatinib within 30 days from the run-out date of the prior prescription) were identified during the 12-month follow-up period. Medication possession ratio (MPR), calculated as total days' supply of imatinib divided by 365, was also examined. Healthcare costs (i.e. paid amounts for all prescription medications and medical services received, including health plan and patient liability) were examined in three ways: (i) total healthcare costs; (ii) total healthcare costs exclusive of imatinib costs; and (iii) total medical costs. All costs were converted to US dollars (2004 values) using the medical component of the Consumer Price Index. MPR was modelled using ordinary least squares regression. Presence of treatment interruptions was modelled using logistic regression. The association between MPR and healthcare costs was estimated using a generalised linear model specified with a gamma error distribution and a log link. All models included adjustment for age, gender, number of concomitant medications, starting dose of imatinib and cancer complexity. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were identified. Average age was approximately 50 years, and 43% were women. Mean MPR was 77.7%, with 31% of patients having a treatment interruption. However, all of these patients resumed imatinib within the study period. In this population, MPR decreased as the number of concomitant medications increased (p = 0.002), and was lower among women (p = 0.003), patients with high cancer complexity (p = 0.003) and patients with a higher starting dose of imatinib (p = 0.04). Women were approximately twice as likely as men to have a treatment interruption (p = 0.009), as were patients with a high cancer complexity (p = 0.03). After adjusting for the aforementioned covariates, MPR was found to be inversely associated with healthcare costs excluding imatinib (p < 0.001) and medical costs (p < 0.001). A 10% point difference in MPR was associated with a 14% difference in healthcare costs excluding imatinib and a 15% difference in medical costs. For example, patients with an MPR of 75% incur an additional 4072 US dollars in medical costs annually compared with patients with an MPR of 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment interruptions and non-adherence with imatinib, both of which could lead to undesired clinical and economic outcomes, appear to be prevalent. Physicians and pharmacists should educate patients and closely monitor adherence to therapy, as improving adherence and limiting treatment interruptions may not only optimise clinical outcomes but also reduce the economic burden of CML.

Cost effectiveness of once-daily oral chelation therapy with deferasirox versus infusional deferoxamine in transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients: US healthcare system perspective.

BACKGROUND: Deferasirox is a recently approved once-daily oral iron chelator that has been shown to reduce liver iron concentrations and serum ferritin levels to a similar extent as infusional deferoxamine. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus deferoxamine in patients with beta-thalassaemia major from a US healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the total additional lifetime costs and QALYs gained with deferasirox versus deferoxamine in patients with beta-thalassaemia major and chronic iron overload from blood transfusions. Patients were assumed to be 3 years of age at initiation of chelation therapy and to receive prescribed dosages of deferasirox and deferoxamine that have been shown to be similarly effective in such patients. Compliance with chelation therapy and probabilities of iron overload-related cardiac disease and death by degree of compliance were estimated using data from published studies. Costs ($US, year 2006 values) of deferoxamine administration and iron overload-related cardiac disease were based on analyses of health insurance claims of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients. Utilities were based on a study of patient preferences for oral versus infusional chelation therapy, as well as published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were employed to examine the robustness of the results to key assumptions. RESULTS: Deferasirox resulted in a gain of 4.5 QALYs per patient at an additional expected lifetime cost of $US126,018 per patient; the cost per QALY gained was $US28,255. The cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus deferoxamine was sensitive to the estimated costs of deferoxamine administration and the quality-of-life benefit associated with oral versus infusional therapy. Cost effectiveness was also relatively sensitive to the equivalent daily dose of deferasirox, and the unit costs of deferasirox and deferoxamine, and was more favourable in younger patients. CONCLUSION: Results of this analysis of the cost effectiveness of oral deferasirox versus infusional deferoxamine suggest that deferasirox is a cost effective iron chelator from a US healthcare perspective.

Caregiver preference for rivastigmine patch relative to capsules for treatment of probable Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers comprise a critical component in the care of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Among their many tasks, caregivers are responsible for administering and managing medications. Effective interventions incorporate the needs of both the AD patient and the caregiver, and understanding treatment preferences may maximize intervention effectiveness. Transdermal patches may offer advantages over conventional oral formulations. METHODS: A 24-week randomized controlled trial compared the rivastigmine patch to the rivastigmine capsule and placebo in patients with probable AD. At baseline and Weeks 8 and 24, the AD Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) was used to evaluate caregiver expectations, preferences and satisfaction with treatment. Double-dummy treatment blinding ensured that caregiver preference for the patch or capsule was not confounded by perceptions of efficacy or tolerability. Reasons for preference were also elicited. The analytic sample included caregivers who completed the ADCPQ at Weeks 8 and/or 24. RESULTS: One thousand and fifty-nine caregivers completed the ADCPQ. More than 70% of caregivers preferred the rivastigmine patch to the capsule. The patch was significantly preferred to the capsule with respect to ease of following the schedule and ease of use. Caregivers indicated greater satisfaction overall, greater satisfaction with administration, and less interference with daily life with the patch versus the capsule (all p