Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Abemaciclib and Ribociclib in High-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Indian Perspective.

PURPOSE: Incorporating adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib along with endocrine therapy has been shown to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, along with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors from an Indian perspective. METHODS: A Markov chain model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib and ribociclib with letrozole compared with letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- EBC from a payer perspective in India. Key measures included lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), life-years (LY), and total costs. This study explores two scenarios for effectiveness: a best-case (BC) scenario, where the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitors in improving iDFS lasts a lifetime, and a worst-case (WC) scenario, where benefits disappear after 5 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to account for simulation uncertainty. RESULTS: In the BC scenario, abemaciclib added 2.17 QALY and 4.96 LY, incurring ₹2,317,957.7 ($27,756.65 in US dollars [USD]) in additional costs. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for abemaciclib exceeded India's willingness-to-pay threshold in the BC and WC scenarios. In the BC scenario, ribociclib added 0.98 QALY and 2.58 LY with added costs of ₹1,711,504.32 ($20,494.6 USD). The ICER for ribociclib also surpassed India's threshold in both scenarios. PSA showed that neither drug was cost-effective at the current market prices in either BC/WC scenario. The cost of abemaciclib and ribociclib needs to be reduced by at least 78.61% and 87.19%, respectively, to be cost-effective in the BC scenario. CONCLUSION: The combination of adjuvant abemaciclib or ribociclib with letrozole is not cost-effective for HR+/HER2- EBC in India in either the BC or WC scenario.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

First-line Treatment with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women with Hormone-receptor-positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (MONALEESA-7) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib (RIB) as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) from the United States healthcare payer perspective. In addition, because RIB has not been marketed in China, we identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding RIB to endocrine therapy over a lifetime. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Costs data were obtained from United States and Chinese official websites, and we determined the potential price for RIB in China based on its price in the United States. The main outcomes of this study were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The model projected that mean outcome was better with RIB and endocrine combined (3.83366 QALYs) than with endocrine therapy alone (2.71203 QALYs). In the United States, RIB and endocrine therapy cost an additional $604,960.06, resulting in an ICER of $539,357.95/QALY compared with endocrine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses indicated that, in China, the projected mean outcomes were better for RIB and endocrine therapy (6.37 QALYs) than for endocrine monotherapy (2.71 QALYs). The corresponding incremental costs were $224,731.88943. Thus, the ICER comparing RIB and endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone represented a $61,454.96/QALY gain. CONCLUSION: Additional use of RIB is estimated to not be cost effective as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC in the United States. A value-based price for the cost of RIB is less than $31.74/200 mg for China.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus placebo plus endocrine therapy in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.S. payer perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated based on OS and PFS outcomes from the randomized controlled phase 3 trial MONALEESA-7. These Kaplan-Meier curves were extended to lifetime by estimating best-fit distributions using loglogistic distribution for ribociclib curves and Weibull distribution for placebo curves. Costs were obtained from national data sources using 2019 U.S. dollars (USD) and discounted by 3%. Utilities were obtained via published breast cancer literature and were included for each health state and for time spent with each AE. Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Treatments were assumed to be cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Base-case, 1-way sensitivity tornado diagrams and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated changes in the ICER and were driven by the cost of ribociclib and the utility of remaining in the stable health state. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was cost-effective at an ICER of $124,513 per QALY when compared with endocrine therapy alone at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The ribociclib plus endocrine therapy arm had an effectiveness of 5.28 QALYs and a total cost of $385,112, while placebo plus endocrine therapy provided only 2.46 QALYs at a lower total cost of $67.246. The model was sensitive to the cost of ribociclib and the utility of time spent in the stable health state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endocrine therapy alone was cost-effective until a WTP of $125,000 and was cost-effective 72% of the time at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy is more cost-effective than endocrine therapy alone. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of ribociclib for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as they make value-based formulary decisions. Further CEAs should be considered as direct treatment comparison trials between CDK4/6 inhibitors are completed in the future. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib as initial treatment for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown promising results for treating advanced breast cancer (ABC) and are routinely used in Singapore. In view of their high costs, it is important to assess their relative value compared to existing standards of care in the local setting. AIMS: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to goserelin and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen as initial therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free on first-line treatment, progression-free on second-line treatment, progressed disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Key clinical inputs were derived from the MONALEESA-7 trial, and survival curves were extrapolated beyond the trial period. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs were obtained from local public healthcare institutions. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties. RESULTS: The base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD197, 667 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the survival parametric distribution, ribociclib price, time horizon, and utility weights used. Even when these were varied, ICERs remained high and not cost-effective in the local context. CONCLUSION: At its current price, adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in Singapore for HR+, HER2- ABC. Results from this study are useful to inform future funding decisions for CDK4/6 inhibitors alongside other factors including clinical effectiveness, safety, and budget impact considerations.

A modeling framework for the economic evaluation of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials.Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions.Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences.Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

Quantification of Economic Impact of Drug Wastage in Oral Oncology Medications: Comparison of 3 Methods Using Palbociclib and Ribociclib in Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discarding unused drugs after dose changes or discontinuation can significantly affect pharmacy budgets. This is especially concerning for expensive oncology agents. However, few economic studies account for drug wastage, providing an inaccurate estimate of a drug's actual economic cost, cost-effectiveness, and value. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare the economic impact of drug wastage between ribociclib and palbociclib-clinically similar oral medications for metastatic breast cancer-using 3 approaches (Markov model, pharmacy acquisition cost model, and a retrospective claims analysis) and (b) compare the modeling results with a published estimate of drug wastage for palbociclib from a claims analysis. METHODS: A Markov model and a pharmacy acquisitions cost model were developed to evaluate the economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib over a 1-year time period. Data inputs were pharmacy costs (RED BOOK wholesale acquisition cost) and proportion of patients experiencing dose reductions from either ribociclib randomized clinical trials (MONALEESA-2, -3, or -7) or real-world observational data (Symphony Health retrospective claims analysis). The latter constituted the third approach for quantifying drug wastage. The economic impact of dose reductions for ribociclib and palbociclib in postmenopausal women with previously untreated HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer was assessed. Drug wastage was defined as drug doses that could not be used by a patient following a dose reduction. The cost of drug wastage was defined as the cost associated with an unused drug resulting from a dose reduction. The predicted results from the 2 models were compared with a previously published claims analysis that estimated the effect of treatment costs and drug wastage for palbociclib based on the observed dosing patterns from the Symphony Health Solutions database. RESULTS: In the Markov model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib users experienced drug wastage of $112,382 total, or $1,124 per treated patient, per year due to dose changes. In the pharmacy acquisition cost model, relative to ribociclib, palbociclib usage was associated with an increased cost of $7,196 per patient per year (based on a mid-cycle dose reduction) comprising dosing-based cost differences and drug wastage cost for palbociclib of $3,727. The previously published claims analysis found that palbociclib users experiencing a dose reduction had drug wastage costs of $5,471 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In both models, dose reductions for ribociclib patients resulted in no wastage, since unused tablets could be administered in subsequent cycles, while dose reductions for palbociclib resulted in drug wastage and increased costs. The results from both models were consistent with previously published results from the claims analysis, demonstrating drug wastage costs for palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: This study received financial support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which has products approved for treatment of breast cancer. Tang was employed by Novartis during this study; Zacker and Dalal are employed by Novartis and own company stock. Biskupiak, Brixner, and Oderda received payment from Novartis for this study. Brixner serves as a consultant for Millcreek Outcomes Group and also declares consulting fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Becton Dickinson, and Xcenda, unrelated to this study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Three CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB), and abemaciclib, when combined with letrozole (LET), have been approved as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic HR+, HER2- breast cancer. However, an economic evaluation of these newer therapies is currently lacking. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PAL or RIB for the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer in the United States. METHODS: A Markov simulation model was constructed using data from published clinical trials evaluating PAL and RIB. Three simulated treatment strategies included PAL + LET, RIB + LET, or LET alone. The main outcome measures were simulated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Simulated median OS was 38.9 months for PAL + LET and 33.0 months for LET alone. Simulated median OS for RIB + LET was 43.3 months. Compared to LET alone, PAL + LET provided an additional 0.48 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $634,000 per QALY gained; RIB + LET provided an additional 0.86 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $440,000 per QALY gained. At current prices, neither PAL nor RIB was cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. To reach such a cost-effectiveness threshold, PAL and RIB prices must decrease by approximately 70%. CONCLUSION: Despite significant gains in progression-free survival over letrozole alone, the addition of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer is not cost-effective in the United States given current drug prices.

Ribociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Establishing a value-based cost in China.

BACKGROUND: The addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly increases progression free survival for patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). We identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese perspective. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was developed to model the treatment sequences among patients with ABC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and lifetime costs were estimated. Costs were estimated for Chinese health care systems. Three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China 2016 ($24,360) and three times the per capita GDP of Beijing city 2016 ($53,384) were used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, RIB + LET provided an incremental survival benefit of 0.631 LYs and 0.451 QALYs. When RIB costs less than $721 or $1170 per 4 weeks, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RIB + LET would be less than $24,360 per QALY or $53,384 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: A value-based price for the cost of RIB is $732 or $1170 per 4 weeks for China and Beijing City, respectively. Our study is helpful to inform the multilateral drug price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for RIB.

Why upfront use of CDK inhibitors for the treatment of advanced breast cancer may be wasteful, and how we can increase their value.

Three Cyclin Dependent Kinase 4/6 (CDK) inhibitors have been approved by the United Stated Food and Drug Administration for front line treatment of advanced hormone receptor positive breast cancer based on improvements in progression free survival against endocrine monotherapy. Two clinical trials have so far reported results on overall survival but both are negative. CDK inhibitors are usually tolerated well but they do add to inconvenience and cost - for example, grade III-IV neutropenia occur at a frequency of over 60% requiring frequent blood work at least during the initial months of treatment. These drugs cost over $ 13,500 for a 4-week cycle in the United States, and are responsible for billions of dollars annually in drug cost alone. Importantly, many women with metastatic breast cancer do well for a long time with endocrine therapy alone and CDK inhibitors do not have a predictive marker. Selective use of these agents in later lines may improve substantially the convenience and cost without compromise in overall outcome. However, with results demonstrating impressive improvements in PFS published in major medical journals coupled with patients' natural desire for "best available" options, the trend among oncologists is to prescribe these drugs as the default front-line treatment. In this commentary I caution readers against over interpretation of results from the CDK inhibitor trials, describe adverse consequences of routine front-line use, and explain why selective use in later line may yield a higher value.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib plus Letrozole Versus Palbociclib plus Letrozole and Letrozole Monotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: U.S. regulatory approvals of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib as add-ons to letrozole greatly enhance the prospects for treating postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Clinical trials have established that the combination of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor with letrozole can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole monotherapy and is safe and well tolerated. Cost-effectiveness studies are required to inform payers and clinical decision makers on the money value of combination treatment in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole and versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer from a U.S. private third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model including 3 health states (progression free, with either overall response or stable disease; progressed disease; and death) simulated lifetime costs and outcomes over a 40-year lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length. Clinical efficacy data (PFS and overall survival [OS]) were derived from a phase III trial of ribociclib plus letrozole (MONALEESA-2; NCT01958021), a phase II trial of palbociclib plus letrozole (PALOMA-1; NCT00721409), and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Health care costs included drug acquisition and monitoring, disease management, subsequent therapies, and serious drug-related adverse events. Effectiveness was measured in life-years, derived from survival projections, and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), calculated from time spent in each state combined with health-state utility values. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty in key model parameters on results, and probabilistic uncertainty was assessed through a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole was dominant versus palbociclib plus letrozole, with a cost saving of $43,037 and a gain of 0.086 QALYs. Compared with letrozole monotherapy, ribociclib plus letrozole was associated with an incremental cost of $144,915 and an incremental QALY of 0.689, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $210,369 per QALY. Key model drivers included OS HRs for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole and for ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, the PFS HR for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, PD health-state costs, utility of response, and cost discount rate. The probabilities that ribociclib plus letrozole was cost-effective versus letrozole at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained were 1.6%, 6.3%, and 50.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, ribociclib plus letrozole is a cost-effective alternative to palbociclib plus letrozole for the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ribociclib plus letrozole is also cost-effective versus letrozole monotherapy at willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $198,000 per QALY (for probabilistic analysis). DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Novartis, which manufactures ribociclib and provided input on the study design and data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Mistry, May, Suri, and Young are employees of PAREXEL. Tang, Mishra, D. Bhattacharyya, and Dalal are employees of Novartis. S. Bhattacharyya was an employee of Novartis during the study period. Tang and Dalal hold stock in Novartis. Brixner, Oderda, and Biskupiak were paid by Millcreek Outcomes Group as consultants for work on this project. Brixner has also consulted for AstraZeneca, UCB, Regeneron, and Abbott.

Drivers of treatment patterns in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia stopping ibrutinib or idelalisib therapies.

Novel therapies including kinase inhibitors (KI) have led to high and durable response in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), however, some patients stop therapy. This study evaluates reasons for treatment changes among CLL patients who stopped KI in real-world practice. Sixty-nine US oncologists/hematologists provided patient-level data abstracted from charts of CLL adult patients who initiated a KI and later (1) switched to another anti-neoplastic regimen (Switched cohort), (2) discontinued the KI and remained untreated (Discontinued cohort), or (3) restarted the same KI after an interruption of ≥60 days (Restarted cohort). Demographics, clinical/treatment characteristics, and reasons for stopping, restarting, and switching the KI therapy were described. In the Switched cohort, reasons for stopping included disease progression (72.5%), low/no disease activity (3.9%), adverse event [AE]/ intolerance/comorbidity (15.7%), and planned cellular therapies (7.9%). In the Discontinued cohort, approximately half (46.0%) of patients stopped KI therapy because they were terminally ill/died, or were moved to best supportive care - these patients were older, had more severe disease, and high comorbidity burden. The other half (54.0% of patients) stopped due to low/no disease activity (24.0%), AEs/toxicity (12.0%), or patient-requested drug holiday (18.0%). In the Restarted cohort, the most common reasons for stopping KIs were patient request (37.3%), AEs/intolerance (31.4%), and economic reasons (10%). Patients restarted when disease progressed (60.8%) or when they recovered from the AE (33%). Reasons for KI stop and subsequent treatment patterns were varied and multifactorial, suggesting heterogeneous disease management and a need for more evidence around supporting strategies and physician education.

Cost-utility analysis of idelalisib in combination with rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of idelalisib in combination with rituximab (IR) versus rituximab monotherapy (R) in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival Markov model for a lifetime horizon (30 years) was developed to estimate costs (€, 2016) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with IR and R. Initial cohort included patients with CLL receiving a second or subsequent line (2L) of treatment with IR or R. Survival data were based on CLL clinical trial. Drug, administration, monitoring, adverse events and clinical management of CLL costs were included in the model. Costs and outcomes were discounted using a 3% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: Compared to R, 2L IR treatment resulted in QALY gain of 3.147 (4.965 versus 1.818). Total costs were €118 254 for IR versus €23 874 for R. ICUR was €29 990/QALY gained with IR versus R. In the PSA, IR was cost-effective in 78% of iterations using a threshold of €45 000/QALY. CONCLUSION: IR can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared to R, in the treatment of R/R CLL patients for the Spanish NHS.

Regadenoson versus Dipyridamole: A Comparison of the Frequency of Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of adverse events in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with either regadenoson or dipyridamole. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large community teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 568 adults who underwent single-photon emission tomography MPI with either regadenoson (284 patients) or dipyridamole (284 patients) as a vasodilator agent, following an institution conversion from regadenoson to dipyridamole in the MPI protocol on July 15, 2013, for cost-saving purposes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected from the patients' electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was the composite occurrence of any documented adverse event in each group. Secondary endpoints were individual components of the primary endpoint, reason for termination of the MPI examination (protocol completion or premature end due to an adverse event), use of an interventional agent to an treat adverse event, and cost-related outcomes. A higher proportion of patients in the regadenoson group experienced an adverse event than those who received dipyridamole (84.9% vs 56.7%, p<0.0001). None of the patients in either group required early MPI study termination due to an adverse event. No significant differences were noted between groups regarding use of aminophylline or other interventions to treat adverse events. The overall drug cost savings in the postconversion dipyridamole group was $51,526. CONCLUSION: Dipyridamole was associated with fewer adverse events than regadenoson in patients undergoing MPI. Dipyridamole offers a safe and cost-effective alternative to regadenoson for cardiac imaging studies.

Management of elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the era of targeted therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is frequently diagnosed after 71 years, though median age in published clinical trials with standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens in frontline or relapse setting is mostly below 70 years (58-71 years). Development of oral, less toxic and thus more affordable targeted therapies offers new therapeutic options in those patients deemed unfit for chemotherapy. RECENT FINDINGS: This review will discuss results of these new agents in the therapy of elderly patients. Apart from discussing the impact of chronological age, creatinine clearance and cumulative illness rating scale scores in the clinical outcomes, we will also discuss how individualized treatment decision-making should include more precise geriatric assessment tools to thoroughly assess life expectancy, anticipate tolerability, to avoid deleterious stress precipitating prefrail patients into definitive loss of capacity, with dramatic social and economic costs. SUMMARY: In the era of new targeted agents to fight cancers, we propose concepts to help us understand how elderly dedicated trial designs and geriatric assessment tools (apart from the evaluation of CLL biological risk factors) will undoubtedly revolutionize therapeutic approaches in everyday practice CLL patients.

Venous leakage treatment revisited: pelvic venoablation using aethoxysclerol under air block technique and Valsalva maneuver.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of pelvic vein embolization with aethoxysclerol in aero-block technique for the treatment of impotence due to venous leakage in men using sildenafil for intercourse. The aim of the procedure was to reduce the use of sildenafil. METHODS: A total of 96 patients with veno-occlusive dysfunction, severe enough for the need of PDE5 inhibitors for vaginal penetration, underwent pelvic venoablation with aethoxysclerol. The mean patient age was 53.5 years. Venous leaks were identified by Color Doppler Ultrasound after intracavernous alprostadil injection. Under local anesthesia a 20-gauge needle was inserted into the deep dorsal penile vein. The pelvic venogram was obtained through deep dorsal venography. Aethoxysclerol 3% as sclerosing agent was injected after air-block under Valsalva manoeuver. Success was defined as the ability to achieve vaginal insertion without the aid of any drugs, vasoactive injections, penile prosthesis, or vacuum device. Additionally, a pre- and post- therapy IIEF score and a digital overnight spontaneous erections protocol (OSEP) with the NEVA™-system was performed. RESULTS: At 3 month follow-up 77 out of 96 patients (80.21%) reported to have erections sufficient for vaginal insertion without the use of any drug or additional device. Four (4.17%) patients did not report any improvement. Follow up with color Doppler ultrasound revealed a new or persistent venous leakage in 8 (8.33%) of the patients. No serious complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our new pelvic venoablation technique using aethoxysclerol in air-block technique was effective, minimally invasive, and cost-effective. All patients were able to perform sexual intercourse without the previously used dosage of PDE5 inhibitor. This new method may help in patients with contra-indications against PDE5 inhibitors, in patients who cannot afford the frequent usage of expensive oral medication or those who do not fully respond to PDE5-inhibitors.

Impact of ibrutinib and idelalisib on the pharmaceutical cost of treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia at the individual and societal levels.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of approval of ibrutinib and idelalisib on pharmaceutical costs in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) at the societal level and assess individual out-of-pocket costs under Medicare Part D. METHODS: Average wholesale price of commonly used CLL treatment regimens was ascertained from national registries. Using the population of Olmsted County, Minnesota, we identified the proportion of patients with newly diagnosed CLL who experience progression to the point of requiring treatment. Using these data, total pharmaceutical cost over a 10-year period after diagnosis was estimated for a hypothetic cohort of 100 newly diagnosed patients under three scenarios: before approval of ibrutinib and idelalisib (historical scenario), after approval of ibrutinib and idelalisib as salvage therapy (current scenarios A and B), and assuming use of ibrutinib as first-line treatment (potential future scenario). RESULTS: Estimated 10-year pharmaceutical costs for 100 newly diagnosed patients were as follows: $4,565,929 (approximately $45,659 per newly diagnosed patient and $157,446 per treated patient) for the historical scenario, $7,794,843 (approximately $77,948 per newly diagnosed patient and $268,788 per treated patient) for current scenario A, $6,309,162 (approximately $63,092 per newly diagnosed patient and $217,557 per treated patient) for current scenario B, and $16,414,055 (approximately $164,141 per newly diagnosed patient and $566,002 per treated patient) for the potential future scenario. Total out-of-pocket cost for 100 patients with newly diagnosed CLL under Medicare Part D increased from $9,426 under the historical scenario (approximately $325 per treated patient) to $363,830 and $255,051 under current scenarios A and B (approximately $8,800 to $12,500 per treated patient) and to $1,031,367 (approximately $35,564 per treated patient) under the future scenario. CONCLUSION: Although ibrutinib and idelalisib are profound treatment advances, they will dramatically increase individual out-of-pocket and societal costs of caring for patients with CLL. These cost considerations may undermine the potential promise of these agents by limiting access and reducing adherence.