Effect of Switching the Histamine-1 Receptor Antagonist Clemastine to Cetirizine in Paclitaxel Premedication Regimens: The H1-Switch Study.

PURPOSE: Premedication, including a histamine-1 receptor (H1) antagonist, is recommended to all patients treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the scientific basis for this premedication is not robust, which provides opportunities for optimization. Substitution of intravenously administered first-generation H1 antagonist for orally administered second-generation H1 antagonist could reduce side effects, and improve efficiency and sustainability. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of substituting intravenous clemastine for oral cetirizine as prophylaxis for paclitaxel-induced HSRs. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, noninferiority study compares a historic cohort receiving a premedication regimen with intravenous clemastine to a prospective cohort receiving oral cetirizine. Primary end point of the study is HSR grade ≥3. The difference in incidence was calculated together with the 90% CI. We determined that the two-sided 90% CI of HSR grade ≥3 incidence in the oral cetirizine cohort should not be more than 4% higher (ie, the noninferiority margin) compared with the intravenous clemastine cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in the oral cetirizine cohort (June 2022 and May 2023) and 183 in the intravenous clemastine cohort. HSR grade ≥3 incidence was 1.6% (n = 3) in the intravenous clemastine cohort and 0.5% (n = 1) in the oral cetirizine cohort, resulting in a difference of -1.2% (90% CI, -3.4 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: Premedication containing oral cetirizine is as safe as premedication containing intravenous clemastine in preventing paclitaxel-induced HSR grade ≥3. These findings could contribute to optimization of care for patients and improve efficiency and sustainability.

Cost-utility analysis of tapering strategies of biologicals in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend tapering biological disease-modifying antirheumatoid drugs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) if the disease is under control. However, guidelines on tapering are lacking. Assessing cost-effectiveness of different tapering strategies might provide broader input for creating guidelines on how to taper bDMARDs in patients with RA. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of bDMARD tapering strategies in Dutch patients with RA, namely 50% dose reduction (tapering), discontinuation and a 50% dose reduction followed by discontinuation (de-escalation). METHODS: Using a societal perspective, a Markov model with a life-time horizon of 30 years was used to simulate 3-monthly transitions between Disease Activity 28 (DAS28)-defined health states of remission (<2.6), low disease activity (2.63.2). Transition probabilities were estimated through literature search and random effects pooling. Incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefits for each tapering strategy were compared with continuation. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and multiple scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: After 30 years, the ICERs were €115 157/QALY lost, €74 226/QALY lost and €67 137/QALY lost for tapering, de-escalation and discontinuation, respectively; mainly driven by bDMARD cost savings and a 72.8% probability of a loss in quality of life. This corresponds to a 76.1%, 64.3% and 60.1% probability of tapering, de-escalation and discontinuation being cost-effective, provided a willingness-to-accept threshold of €50 000/QALY lost. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these analyses, the 50% tapering approach saved the highest cost per QALY lost.

The added value of H2 antagonists in premedication regimens during paclitaxel treatment.

BACKGROUND: Ranitidine, a histamine 2 blocker, is the standard of care to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) caused by paclitaxel infusion. However, the added value of ranitidine in this premedication regimen is controversial. Therefore, we compared the incidence of HSRs during paclitaxel treatment between a standard regimen including ranitidine and a regimen without ranitidine. METHODS: This prospective, pre-post interventional, non-inferiority study compared the standard premedication regimen (N = 183) with dexamethasone, clemastine and ranitidine with a premedication regimen without ranitidine (N = 183). The primary outcome was the incidence of HSR grade ≥3. Non-inferiority was determined by checking whether the upper bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in HSR rates excluded the +6% non-inferiority margin. RESULTS: In both the pre-intervention (with ranitidine) and post-intervention (without ranitidine) group 183 patients were included. The incidence of HSR grade ≥3 was 4.4% (N = 8) in the pre-intervention group and 1.6% (N = 3) in the post-intervention group: difference -2.7% (90% CI: -6.2 to 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: As the upper boundary of the 90% CI does not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin of +6%, it can be concluded that a premedication regimen without ranitidine is non-inferior to a premedication regimen with ranitidine. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.trialregister.nl ; NL8173.

Cost-effectiveness of vaccination of the elderly against herpes zoster in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Each year a substantial number of Dutch elderly suffers from herpes zoster (HZ), caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus (VZV). A potential complication of HZ is postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) which results in a prolonged loss of quality of life. A large randomized clinical trial, labelled the Shingles Prevention study (SPS), demonstrated that a live attenuated VZV vaccine can reduce the incidence of HZ and PHN. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of vaccination of the elderly against HZ versus no such vaccination in The Netherlands. METHODS: A cohort model was developed to compare the costs and effects in a vaccinated and a non-vaccinated age- and gender-stratified cohort of immune-competent elderly. Vaccination age was varied from 60 to 75 years. Data from published literature such as the SPS were used for transition probabilities. The study was performed from the societal as well as the health care payer's perspective and results were expressed in euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base case, we estimated that vaccination of a cohort of 100,000 60-year-olds would prevent 4136 cases of HZ, 305 cases of PHN resulting in a QALY-gain of 209. From the societal perspective, a total of €1.9 million was saved and the ICER was €35,555 per QALY gained when a vaccine price of €87 was used. Vaccination of women resulted in a lower ICER than vaccination of men (€33,258 vs. €40,984 per QALY gained). The vaccination age with the most favourable ICER was 70 years (€29,664 per QALY gained). Parameters with a major impact on the ICER were the vaccine price and HZ incidence rates. In addition, the model was sensitive to utility of mild pain, vaccine efficacy at the moment of uptake and the duration of protection induced by the vaccine. CONCLUSION: Vaccination against HZ might be cost-effective for ages ranging from 60 to 75 when a threshold of €50,000 per QALY gained would be used, at €20,000 per QALY this might not be the case. Additional information on the duration of vaccine-protection is needed to further optimize cost-effectiveness estimations.