Cost-effectiveness of recombinant activated factor VII vs. plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrate in the treatment of mild-to-moderate bleeding episodes in patients with severe haemophilia A and inhibitors in Spain.

Several analyses have shown that recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) is a cost-effective intervention compared with plasma-derived activated prothrombin complex concentrate (pd-aPCC) for the on-demand treatment of mild-to-moderate bleeds in haemophilia patients with inhibitors. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of rFVIIa vs. pd-aPCC in the treatment of bleeding episodes in severe haemophilia A patients with inhibitors in Spain. A decision analytic model was designed to evaluate the costs and clinical outcomes of using rFVIIa or pd-aPCC to treat mild-to-moderate joint bleeds in children (≤14 years old) and adults with inhibitors. Data were obtained from a published meta-analysis and a panel of haemophilia experts. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of model assumptions on study results. In the Treur meta-analysis, rFVIIa resulted in cumulative joint bleed resolution of 88% and 95% after 24 and 36 h, respectively, compared with 62% and 76%, respectively, with pd-aPCC (Treur et al. Haemophilia 2009; 15: 420-36). Here, the mean cost per bleed was estimated at €8473 and €15 579 in children and adults treated with rFVIIa, vs. €8627 and €15 677 in children and adults treated with pd-aPCC. rFVIIa treatment was found to be the dominating option (cheaper and more effective). The one-way sensitivity analysis also confirmed that rFVIIa was less costly than pd-aPCC. The model suggests that rFVIIa is a cost-effective option compared with pd-aPCC for the treatment of mild-to-moderate bleeding episodes in a Spanish setting.

Effect of atorvastatin on lipoprotein (a) and interleukin-10: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: This study aimed to determine the effect of atorvastatin therapy on plasma lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and biomarkers of inflammation in hypercholesterolaemic patients free of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this three-month randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 63 hypercholesterolaemic patients were randomly treated with either placebo or atorvastatin (10 or 40 mg/day) for 12 weeks. Lp(a) and biomarkers of inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin [IL]-6 and -10, and tumour necrosis factor-alpha receptors [TNF-Rs]) were measured at study entry, and at four and 12 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: At the end of the study, patients allocated to atorvastatin (10 or 40 mg/day) presented with significantly lower Lp(a) levels than those taking placebo (10 [1-41]mg/dL versus 6 [1-38]mg/dL [P = 0.02] and 21 [1-138]mg/dL versus 15 [1-103]mg/dL [P = 0.04], respectively]. In multivariate analyses, the relative changes in Lp(a) were independently related to baseline Lp(a) levels and CRP changes. No significant changes in CRP, IL-6 and TNF-Rs were observed. In contrast, IL-10 (pg/mL) increased significantly in patients taking atorvastatin (2.14 [0.49-43]pg/mL versus 4.54 [0.51-37.5]pg/mL; P = 0.01), and was even more increased with the 40-mg dose than with 10mg. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 12-week atorvastatin is effective in reducing Lp(a) in dyslipidaemic patients free of CVD. Furthermore, this is also the first evidence that the drug increases IL-10 in a dose-dependent manner.

Evaluation of cefonicid use in a general hospital.

Recently marketed drugs have limited experience in clinical use. Follow-up evaluation is therefore needed, particularly when these drugs are "restricted use" medicines, such as the second-generation cephalosporins. We present a follow-up of the first use of cefonicid, which was carried out after its substitution for cefuroxime in our hospital. The indication for use, dosing, therapeutic effects, and possible adverse reactions were recorded in 210 of the first 319 medical-surgical inpatients who received cefonicid. Cefonicid was administered to patients who could have been treated with free-use antibiotics on at least 128 occasions; these were cases of community-acquired pneumonia without any risk factor, urinary tract infections, acute exacerbations in patients with chronic lung disease, surgical prophylaxis, and intraabdominal infections. One fatal case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome was seen. Other recorded adverse events were two skin reactions, one tachyarrhythmia with evidence of low cardiac output, six episodes of phlebitis, and nine superinfections during treatment with cefonicid. The use of cefonicid instead of cefuroxime was associated with 20 percent cost savings; however, this study shows that optimal antibiotic prescribing may produce much greater savings.