The Use and Effectiveness of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in Real-World Clinical Practice: EZTEAM Study

INTRODUCTION

Ceftazidime-avibactam has proven activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria in clinical trials and real-world studies. This study was conducted to describe the patterns of use of ceftazidime-avibactam (including indications and associated antibiotics), and the effectiveness and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

This non-interventional medical chart review study was conducted in 11 countries across the European and Latin American (LATAM) regions. Consecutive patients treated in clinical practice with at least one dose of ceftazidime-avibactam for an approved indication per country label since 01 January 2018 (or launch date in the country if posterior) were enrolled. Effectiveness analyses were conducted in patients treated with ceftazidime-avibactam for at least 72 h.

RESULTS

Of the 569 eligible patients enrolled, 516 (90.7%) were treated for at least 72 h (354 patients from Europe and 162 patients from LATAM); 390 patients (75.7%) had switched from another antibiotic line for Gram-negative coverage. Infection sources were intra-abdominal, urinary, respiratory, bloodstream infections, and other infections (approximately 20% each). K. pneumoniae was the most common microorganism identified in the latest microbiological evaluation before starting ceftazidime-avibactam (59.3%). Two-thirds of microorganisms tested for susceptibility were MDR, of which 89.3% were carbapenem-resistant. The common MDR mechanisms for K. pneumoniae were carbapenemase (33.9%), oxacillinase 48 (25.2%), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (21.5%), or metallo-beta-lactamase (14.2%) production. Without prior patient exposure, 17 isolates (mostly K. pneumoniae) were resistant to ceftazidime-avibactam. Treatment success was achieved in 77.3% of patients overall (88.3% among patients with urinary infection), regardless of first or second treatment line. In-hospital mortality rate was 23.1%. Adverse events were reported for six of the 569 patients enrolled.

CONCLUSION

This study provides important real-world evidence on treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in clinical practice through its recruitment in the European and LATAM regions. Ceftazidime-avibactam is one of the antibiotics to consider for treatment of MDR bacteria.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03923426.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Purpose

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial.

Patients and Methods

The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System.

Results

CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49–30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268–€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34–27.09%), 26.4% (20.5–32.32%), 28.6% (22.08–35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39–33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902–€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881–€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800–€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608–€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures.

Conclusion

Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

1604. Cost-Effectiveness of Ceftazidime-Avibactam for Patients with Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia Caused by Multi-Drug Resistant Enterobacteriaceae or Pseudomonas in China

Background

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multi-drug resistant enterobacteriaceae (MDRE) or MDR pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRPA) in China.

Methods

A previously published patient-level simulation model was localized to China to estimate the cost-effectiveness of first-line CAZ-AVI compared to meropenem from a healthcare perspective. Patients flowed through the model which evaluates resistance status, response, and adverse events (AEs), which can all lead to a treatment switch. Second-line therapy of colistin plus high dose meropenem was used for both arms. Resistance rates were 0.7% (CAZ-AVI) and 7.6% (meropenem) for MDRE, and 10.7% (CAZ-AVI) and 35.5% (meropenem) for MDRPA. Effectiveness rates for CAZ-AVI and meropenem were based on a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. All cost data, including drugs, AEs, and hospitalization were localized to China. Utility values were based on response and sourced from the literature. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5% over the five year time horizon.

Results

At a cost-effectiveness threshold of three-times GDP per capita, CAZ-AVI was cost-effective compared to meropenem for HAP/VAP caused by both MDRE and MDRPA with ICERs of ¥147,500 and ¥30,496, respectively. Specifically, CAZ-AVI had ¥13,699 and 0.09 additional total costs and QALYs, respectively, within MDRE; ¥5,207 and 0.17 additional total costs and QALYs, respectively, within MDRPA. Length of stay was reduced by 0.65 days and 1.37 in the CAZ-AVI arms of the MDRE and MDRPA analyses, respectively.

Conclusion

CAZ-AVI is a cost-effective alternative to meropenem in the treatment of HAP/VAP caused by MDRE or MDRPA in China.

Disclosures

Wesley Furnback, BA, Pfizer (Consultant) YiXi Chen, MSc, Pfizer (Employee) Peng Dong, PhD, Pfizer (Employee) Bruce Wang, PhD, Pfizer (Consultant) Wajeeha Ansari, MSc, Pfizer (Employee) Claudie Charbonneau, PhD, Pfizer (Employee) Hengjing Dong, MD, Pfizer (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium)

Estimating the Value of New Antimicrobials in the Context of Antimicrobial Resistance: Development and Application of a Dynamic Disease Transmission Model

OBJECTIVES

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a significant threat to patient and population health. The study aim was to develop and validate a model of AMR that defines and quantifies the value of new antibiotics.

METHODS

A dynamic disease transmission and cost-effectiveness model of AMR consisting of three components (disease transmission, treatment pathway and optimisation) was developed to evaluate the health economic value of new antibiotics. The model is based on the relationship between AMR, antimicrobial availability and consumption. Model analysis explored the impact of different antibiotic treatment strategies on the development of AMR, patient and population estimates of health benefit, across three common treatment indications and pathogens in the UK.

RESULTS

Population-level resistance to existing antimicrobials was estimated to increase from 10.3 to 16.1% over 10 years based on current antibiotic availability and consumption. In comparison, the diversified use of a new antibiotic was associated with significant reduction in AMR (12.8% vs. 16.1%) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains at a patient (7.7-10.3, dependent on antimicrobial efficacy) and population level (3657-8197, dependent on antimicrobial efficacy and the prevalence of AMR). Validation across several real-world data sources showed that the model output does not tend to systematically under- or over-estimate observed data.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of new antibiotics and the appropriate use of existing antibiotics are key to addressing the threat of AMR. This study presents a validated model that quantifies the value of new antibiotics through clinical and economic outcomes of relevance, and accounts for disease transmission of infection and development of AMR. In this context, the model may be a useful tool that could contribute to the decision-making process alongside other potential models and expert advice.

Economic analysis of ceftaroline fosamil for treating community-acquired pneumonia in Spain

Background: Adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) impose significant burden upon limited hospital resources. To achieve early response and possibly early discharge, thus reducing hospital expenditure, the choice of initial antibiotic therapy is pivotal.Methods: A cost-consequences model was developed to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other antibiotic therapies (ceftriaxone, co-amoxiclav, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin) for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with moderate/severe CAP (PORT score III-IV) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).Findings: Compared with ceftriaxone, the model predicted an increase in the number of CFT-treated patients discharged early (PDE) (30.6% vs. 26.1%) while decreasing initial antibiotic failures (3.8% vs. 7.6%). For patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, CFT was cost-saving vs. ceftriaxone (by 1.2%) and significantly increased PDE (32.1% vs. 24.6%). CFT resulted in cost-saving vs. levofloxacin, due lower initial antibiotic therapy costs and increased PDE (30.6% vs. 14.9%). Moxifloxacin and co-amoxiclav early response rate of 53.63% and 54.24% resulted in cost neutrality vs. CFT, with direct comparison hampered by the significantly different early response criteria utilized in the literature.Conclusions: Despite a higher unit cost, CFT is a reasonable alternative to other agents for adults hospitalized with moderate/severe CAP, given the projected higher PDE achieved with similar or lower total costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as empirical treatment comparing to ceftolozane/tazobactam and to meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI)

Background

The rising incidence of resistance to currently available antibiotics among pathogens, particularly Gram-negative pathogens, in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has become a challenge for clinicians. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for treating (in combination with metronidazole) cIAI in adult hospitalised patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options. The approval was based on the results of RECLAIM, a Phase III, parallel-group, comparative study (RECLAIM 1 [NCT01499290] and RECLAIM 2 [NCT01500239]). The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole compared with 1) ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and 2) meropenem, as an empiric treatment for the management of cIAI in Italy.

Methods

A sequential, patient-level simulation model, with a 5-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate (applied to both costs and health benefits), was developed using Microsoft Excel® to demonstrate the clinical course of the disease. The impact of resistant pathogens was included as an additional factor.

Results

In the base-case analysis, the CAZ-AVI sequence (CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole followed by a colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem combination after treatment failure), when compared to sequences for ceftolozane/tazobactam (ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure) and meropenem (meropenem followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure), had better clinical outcomes with higher cure rates (93.04% vs. 91.52%; 92.98% vs. 90.24%, respectively), shorter hospital stays (∆ = − 0.38 and ∆ = − 1.24 days per patient, respectively), and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (4.021 vs. 3.982; 4.019 vs. 3.960, respectively). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio in the CAZ-AVI sequence was €4099 and €15,574 per QALY gained versus each comparator sequence, respectively, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY accepted in Italy.

Conclusions

The model results demonstrated that CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be a cost-effective alternative when compared with other antibiotic treatment options, as it is expected to provide better clinical benefits in hospitalised patients with cIAI in Italy.

Treatment of immunocompromised patients with suspected invasive fungal infections: economic analysis of diagnostic-driven versus empirical strategies in Algeria and Egypt

Background: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in immunocompromised patients are associated with high mortality and treatment costs. Identifying appropriate, cost-effective treatment strategies is crucial to reduce the burden of IFIs. This economic assessment compared strategies for treating immunocompromised patients in Algeria and Egypt.Methods: We developed a decision analytic model incorporating clinical and cost inputs associated with a diagnostic-driven (DD) and standard empirical (SE) strategy. Costs and clinical outcomes were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per death avoided.Results: In both countries, 73.8 (DD) and 125.3 (SE) hypothetical patients per 1,000 received antifungal therapy; 73.8 (DD) and 32.7 (SE) had diagnosed IFIs. Survival at 180 days was similar between DD and SE strategies in Algeria (92.0% vs 91.6%) and Egypt (90.2% vs 90.0%). Total costs per patient were lower with the DD than SE strategy (Algeria: $839 vs $1,591; Egypt: $4,077 vs $4,717). ICERs indicated that the DD compared with SE strategy was associated with better clinical outcomes at a lower overall cost in both countries.Conclusion: Diagnostic-driven compared to empirical therapy may be cost-saving in Algeria and Egypt for the management of immunocompromised patients with persistent neutropenic fever, with no increase in mortality.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam compared to imipenem as empirical treatment for complicated urinary tract infections

Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a novel, fixed-dose combination antibiotic that has been approved in Europe and the United States for patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) based on results of a Phase III, randomized, comparative study (RECAPTURE study). The present analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI as an empirical treatment for hospitalized patients with cUTIs from the Italian publicly funded healthcare (third-party payer) perspective. A sequential, patient-level simulation model was developed that followed the clinical course of cUTI and generated 5000 pairs of identical patients (CAZ-AVI or imipenem as empirical treatment). The model included additional impact of resistant pathogens; patients who did not respond to empirical treatment were switched to second-line treatment of colistin+high dose carbapenem in both groups. The time horizon of the model was five years, with an annual discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis demonstrated that an intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) compared with a comparator sequence (imipenem followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) was associated with a net incremental cost of €1015 per patient but provided better health outcomes in terms of clinical cure (97.65% vs. 91.08%; ∆ = 6.57%), shorter hospital stays (10.65 vs. 12.55 days; ∆ = 1.90 days), and QALYs gained per patient (4.190 vs. 4.063; ∆ = 0.126). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €8039/QALY, which is well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY in Italy. The results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to be a cost-effective treatment compared with imipenem for cUTI in Italy.

Value of hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs [ASPs]: a systematic review

Background

Hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) aim to promote judicious use of antimicrobials to combat antimicrobial resistance. For ASPs to be developed, adopted, and implemented, an economic value assessment is essential. Few studies demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of ASPs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the economic and clinical impact of ASPs.

Methods

An update to the Dik et al. systematic review (2000–2014) was conducted on EMBASE and Medline using PRISMA guidelines. The updated search was limited to primary research studies in English (30 September 2014–31 December 2017) that evaluated patient and/or economic outcomes after implementation of hospital ASPs including length of stay (LOS), antimicrobial use, and total (including operational and implementation) costs.

Results

One hundred forty-six studies meeting inclusion criteria were included. The majority of these studies were conducted within the last 5 years in North America (49%), Europe (25%), and Asia (14%), with few studies conducted in Africa (3%), South America (3%), and Australia (3%). Most studies were conducted in hospitals with 500–1000 beds and evaluated LOS and change in antibiotic expenditure, the majority of which showed a decrease in LOS (85%) and antibiotic expenditure (92%). The mean cost-savings varied by hospital size and region after implementation of ASPs. Average cost savings in US studies were $732 per patient (range: $2.50 to $2640), with similar trends exhibited in European studies. The key driver of cost savings was from reduction in LOS. Savings were higher among hospitals with comprehensive ASPs which included therapy review and antibiotic restrictions.

Conclusions

Our data indicates that hospital ASPs have significant value with beneficial clinical and economic impacts. More robust published data is required in terms of implementation, LOS, and overall costs so that decision-makers can make a stronger case for investing in ASPs, considering competing priorities. Such data on ASPs in lower- and middle-income countries is limited and requires urgent attention.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of voriconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B for invasive fungal infections following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Mexico

Background

Patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFIs), which are associated with high mortality and economic burden. The cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of IFIs in alloHSCT recipients in Mexico has not yet been assessed.

Methods

This analysis modeled a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients to estimate costs and outcomes for patients receiving prophylaxis for IFIs following alloHSCT, from the perspective of institutional payers in Mexico. The main prophylaxis agents currently used in Mexican clinical practice are voriconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B (AmB). The model accounted for event rates of IFIs during each treatment, assuming IFI causality due to invasive aspergillosis, invasive candidiasis, or other IFIs, and that the outcome for patients during follow-up was IFI-related death, death from other causes, or survival. Clinical efficacies were obtained from published literature; costs were based on local sources. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Univariate (assessing the impact of varying each model parameter) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Voriconazole was associated with the lowest number of breakthrough IFIs, IFI-related deaths, and total number of deaths. Total costs were lower for fluconazole (Mexican pesos [MXN] 72,944; US $4,079) than voriconazole (MXN 101,413; US $5,671) or AmB (MXN 110,529; US $6,180). Voriconazole had better clinical outcomes and lower costs than AmB and could be considered cost-effective compared with fluconazole in line with the local ICER threshold. Drug costs, monitoring costs, and duration of prophylaxis were most sensitive to variation from univariate sensitivity analysis. Findings from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were consistent with the base-case results.

Conclusion

Voriconazole had the most favorable clinical outcomes, but overall prophylaxis costs were higher than with fluconazole. Overall, based on local ICER thresholds (MXN 184,665; US $10,326), voriconazole was considered a cost-effective option for prophylaxis of IFI in Mexico.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness studies of echinocandins for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, including candidemia, are rare in Asia. No study has determined whether echinocandins are cost-effective for both Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species. There have been no economic evaluations that compare non-echinocandins with the three available echinocandins. This study was aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of individual echinocandins, namely caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin, versus non-echinocandins for C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, respectively.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of echinocandins and non-echinocandins for invasive candidiasis. The probability of treatment success, mortality rate, and adverse drug events were extracted from published clinical trials. The cost variables (i.e., drug acquisition) were based on Taiwan's healthcare system from the perspective of a medical payer. One-way sensitivity analyses and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For treating invasive candidiasis (all species), as compared to fluconazole, micafungin and caspofungin are dominated (less effective, more expensive), whereas anidulafungin is cost-effective (more effective, more expensive), costing US$3666.09 for each life-year gained, which was below the implicit threshold of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in Taiwan. For C. albicans, echinocandins are cost-saving as compared to non-echinocandins. For non-albicans Candida species, echinocandins are cost-effective as compared to non-echinocandins, costing US$652 for each life-year gained. The results were robust over a wide range of sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the clinical efficacy of antifungal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Echinocandins, especially anidulafungin, appear to be cost-effective for invasive candidiasis caused by C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species in Taiwan.

Burden and treatment patterns of invasive fungal infections in hospitalized patients in the Middle East: real-world data from Saudi Arabia and Lebanon

Objectives

The objective of this study was to document the burden and treatment patterns associated with invasive fungal infections (IFIs) due to Candida and Aspergillus species in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

Methods

A retrospective chart review study was conducted using data recorded from 2011 to 2012 from hospitals in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. Patients were included if they had been discharged with a diagnosis of IFI due to Candida or Aspergillus, which was culture proven or suspected based on clinical criteria. Hospital data were abstracted for a random sample of patients to capture demographics, treatment patterns, hospital resource utilization, and clinical outcomes. Descriptive results were reported.

Results

Five hospitals participated and provided data on 102 patients with IFI (51 from Lebanon and 51 from Saudi Arabia). The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 55% were males. Comorbidities included diabetes (41%), coronary artery disease (24%), leukemia (19%), moderate-to-severe renal disease (16%), congestive heart failure (15%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (15%). Twenty percent of patients received corticosteroids prior to admission and 26% had received chemotherapy in the past 90 days. Inpatient mortality was 42%, and the mean hospital length of stay was 32.4±28.6 days. Fifty-five percent of patients required intensive care unit admission (17.2±14.1 days), 37% required mechanical ventilation (13.7±13.2 days), and 11% required dialysis (14.6±14.2 days). The most commonly used first-line antifungal was fluconazole.

Conclusion

Patients with IFI in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon frequently have multiple medical comorbidities and may not have traditionally observed IFI risk factors. Efforts to increase use of rapid diagnostic tests and appropriate antifungal treatments may impact the substantial mortality and high length of stay observed in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of combination antifungal therapy with voriconazole and anidulafungin versus voriconazole monotherapy for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Spain

Objective

According to a recent randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the combination of voriconazole and anidulafungin (VOR+ANI) with VOR monotherapy for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with hematologic disease or with hematopoietic stem cell transplant, mortality was lower after 6 weeks with VOR+ANI than with VOR monotherapy in a post hoc analysis of patients with galactomannan-based IA. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of VOR+ANI with VOR, from the perspective of hospitals in the Spanish National Health System.

Methods

An economic model with deterministic and probabilistic analyses was used to determine costs per life-year gained (LYG) for VOR+ANI versus VOR in patients with galactomannan-based IA. Mortality, adverse event rates, and life expectancy were obtained from clinical trial data. The costs (in 2015 euros [€]) of the drugs and the adverse event-related costs were obtained from Spanish sources. A Tornado plot and a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000 iterations) were used to assess uncertainty of all model variables.

Results

According to the deterministic analysis, for each patient treated with VOR+ANI compared with VOR monotherapy, there would be a total of 0.348 LYG (2.529 vs 2.181 years, respectively) at an incremental cost of €5,493 (€17,902 vs €12,409, respectively). Consequently, the additional cost per LYG with VOR+ANI compared with VOR would be €15,785. Deterministic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. In the probabilistic analysis, the cost per LYG with VOR+ANI was €15,774 (95% confidence interval: €15,763–16,692). The probability of VOR+ANI being cost-effective compared with VOR was estimated at 82.5% and 91.9%, based on local cost-effectiveness thresholds of €30,000 and €45,000, respectively.

Conclusion

According to the present economic study, combination therapy with VOR+ANI is cost-effective as primary therapy of IA in galactomannan-positive patients in Spain who have hematologic disease or hematopoietic stem cell transplant, compared with VOR monotherapy.

Economic evaluation of azoles as primary prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in Spanish patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant

Patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at risk of developing invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Even with introduction of oral triazole antifungal agents (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole) IFI-associated morbidity and mortality rates and economic burden remain high. Despite their proven efficacy, it is currently unknown which is the most cost-effective antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) agent. To determine the costs and outcomes associated with AFP, a decision-analytic model was used to simulate treatment in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients undergoing alloHSCT from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Generic itraconazole was the least costly AFP (€162) relative to fluconazole (€500), posaconazole oral suspension (€8628) or voriconazole (€6850). Compared with posaconazole, voriconazole was associated with the lowest number of breakthrough IFIs (36 vs 60); thus, the model predicted fewer deaths from breakthrough IFI for voriconazole (24) than posaconazole (33), and the lowest predicted costs associated with other licensed antifungal treatment and IFI treatment in a cohort of 1000. Voriconazole resulted in cost savings of €4707 per patient compared with posaconazole. Itraconazole demonstrated a high probability of being cost-effective. As primary AFP in alloHSCT patients 180 days posttransplant, voriconazole was more likely to be cost-effective than posaconazole regarding cost per additional IFI and additional death avoided.

Small angle neutron scattering contrast variation reveals heterogeneities of interactions in protein gels

We propose a quantitative approach to probe the spatial heterogeneities of interactions in macromolecular gels, based on a combination of small angle X-ray (SAXS) and neutrons (SANS) scattering. We investigate the structure of model gluten protein gels and show that the gels display radically different SAXS and SANS profiles when the solvent is (at least partially) deuterated. The detailed analysis of the SANS signal as a function of the solvent deuteration demonstrates heterogeneities of sample deuteration at different length scales. The progressive exchange between the protons (H) of the proteins and the deuteriums (D) of the solvent is inhomogeneous and 60 nm large zones that are enriched in H are evidenced. In addition, at low protein concentration, in the sol state, solvent deuteration induces a liquid/liquid phase separation. Complementary biochemical and structure analyses show that the denser protein phase is more protonated and specifically enriched in glutenin, the polymeric fraction of gluten proteins. These findings suggest that the presence of H-rich zones in gluten gels would arise from the preferential interaction of glutenin polymers through a tight network of non-exchangeable intermolecular hydrogen bonds.

Economic analysis of empiric versus diagnostic-driven strategies for immunocompromised patients with suspected fungal infections in the People's Republic of China

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) require rapid diagnosis and treatment. A decision-analytic model was used to estimate total costs and survival associated with a diagnostic-driven (DD) or an empiric treatment approach in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies receiving chemotherapy or autologous/allogeneic stem cell transplants in Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, and Guangzhou, the People’s Republic of China. Treatment initiation for the empiric approach occurred after clinical suspicion of an IFI; treatment initiation for the DD approach occurred after clinical suspicion and a positive IFI diagnostic test result. Model inputs were obtained from the literature; treatment patterns and resource use were based on clinical opinion. Total costs were lower for the DD versus the empiric approach in Shanghai (¥3,232 vs ¥4,331), Beijing (¥3,894 vs ¥4,864), Chengdu, (¥4,632 vs ¥5,795), and Guangzhou (¥8,489 vs ¥9,795). Antifungal administration was lower using the DD (5.7%) than empiric (9.8%) approach, with similar survival rates. Results from one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were most sensitive to changes in diagnostic test sensitivity and IFI incidence; the DD approach dominated the empiric approach in 88% of scenarios. These results suggest that a DD compared to an empiric treatment approach in the People’s Republic of China may be cost saving, with similar overall survival in immunocompromised patients with suspected IFIs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis

BACKGROUND

Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in the intensive care unit are challenging conditions that are associated with high rates of mortality. New guidelines from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases strongly recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC. Here, a cost-effectiveness model was developed from the United Kingdom perspective to examine the costs and outcomes of antifungal treatment for C/IC based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines.

METHODS

Costs and treatment outcomes with the echinocandin anidulafungin were compared with those for caspofungin, micafungin and fluconazole. The model included non-neutropenic patients aged ≥16 years with confirmed C/IC who were receiving intravenous first-line treatment. Patients were categorised as either a clinical success or failure (patients with persistent/breakthrough infection); successfully treated patients switched to oral therapy, while patients categorised as clinical failures switched to a different antifungal class. Other inputs were all-cause mortality at 6 weeks, costs of treatment-related adverse events and other medical resource utilisation costs. Resource use was derived from the published literature and from discussion with clinical experts. Drug-acquisition/administration costs were taken from standard United Kingdom costing sources.

RESULTS

The model indicated that first-line anidulafungin could be considered cost-effective versus fluconazole (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £813 per life-year gained) for the treatment of C/IC. Anidulafungin was cost-saving versus caspofungin and micafungin due to lower total costs and a higher rate of survival combined with a higher probability of clinical success.

DISCUSSION

European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC; our model indicated that anidulafungin marries clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

From the United Kingdom perspective, anidulafungin was cost-effective compared with fluconazole for the treatment of C/IC and was cost-saving versus the other echinocandins.

Pathophysiology and burden of infection in patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral vascular disease: focus on skin and soft-tissue infections

Diabetes mellitus affects 284 million adults worldwide and is increasing in prevalence. Accelerated atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes mellitus contributes an increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases including peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Immune dysfunction, diabetic neuropathy and poor circulation in patients with diabetes mellitus, especially those with PVD, place these patients at high risk for many types of typical and atypical infections. Complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTIs) are of particular concern because skin breakdown in patients with advanced diabetes mellitus and PVD provides a portal of entry for bacteria. Patients with diabetes mellitus are more likely to be hospitalized with cSSTIs and to experience related complications than patients without diabetes mellitus. Patients with PVD requiring lower extremity bypass are also at high risk of surgical site and graft infections. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a frequent causative pathogen in cSSTIs, and may be a significant contributor to surgical site infections, especially in patients who are colonized with MRSA on hospital admission. Patients with cSSTIs and diabetes mellitus or PVD experience lower clinical success rates than patients without these comorbidities, and may also have a longer length of hospital stay and higher risk of adverse drug events. Clinicians should be vigilant in recognizing the potential for infection with multi-drug-resistant organisms, especially MRSA, in these populations and initiating therapy with appropriate antibiotics.

Economic Comparison of an Empirical Versus Diagnostic-Driven Strategy for Treating Invasive Fungal Disease in Immunocompromised Patients

PURPOSE

Patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) are treated empirically with antifungal therapy (AFT). Early treatment using a diagnostic-driven (DD) strategy may reduce clinical and economic burdens. We compared costs and outcomes of both strategies from a UK perspective.

METHODS

An empirical strategy with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (C-AmB), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), or caspofungin was compared with a DD strategy (initiated based on positive ELISA results for galactomannan antigen) and/or positive results for Aspergillus species on polymerase chain reaction assay) using C-AmB, voriconazole, or L-AmB in a decision-analytic model. Rates of IFD incidence, overall mortality, and IFD-related mortality in adults expected to be neutropenic for ≥10 days were obtained. The empirical strategy was assumed to identify 30% of IFD and targeted AFT to improve survival by a hazard ratio of 0.589. AFT-specific adverse events were obtained from a summary of product characteristics. Resource use was obtained, and costs were estimated by using standard UK costing sources. All costs are presented in 2012 British pounds sterling.

FINDINGS

Total costs were 32% lower for the DD strategy (£1561.29) versus the empirical strategy (£2301.93) due to a reduced incidence of adverse events and decreased use of AFT. Administration of AFT was reduced by 41% (DD strategy, 74 of 1000; empirical strategy, 125 of 1000), with similar survival rates.

IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that a DD strategy is likely to be cost-saving versus empirical treatment for immunocompromised patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers.

An economic model to compare linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in Germany

BACKGROUND

Across Europe, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is considered to be the primary cause of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). In Germany alone, approximately 14,000 cases of MRSA-associated NP occur annually, which may have a significant impact on health care resource use and associated economic costs. The objective of this study was to investigate the economic impact of linezolid compared with that of vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with MRSA-confirmed NP in the German health care system.

METHODS

A 4-week decision tree model incorporated published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use, and costs (2012 euros) was constructed. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed NP was 10 days. Treatment success (survival), failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events, and mortality were possible outcomes that could impact costs. Alternate scenarios were analyzed, such as varying treatment duration (7 or 14 days) or treatment switch due to a serious adverse event/treatment failure (at day 5 or 10).

RESULTS

The model calculated total base case inpatient costs of €15,116 for linezolid and €15,239 for vancomycin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with marginally lower costs (by €123) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA NP). Approximately 85%-87% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). Sensitivity analysis yielded similar results.

CONCLUSION

The model results show that linezolid is a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed NP, largely attributable to the higher clinical response rate of patients treated with linezolid.

Cost analysis of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis among patients with haematological disorders in Germany and Spain

Background

The current healthcare climate demands pharmacoeconomic evaluations for different treatment strategies incorporating drug acquisition costs, costs incurred for hospitalisation, drug administration and preparation, diagnostic and laboratory testing and drug-related adverse events (AEs). Here we evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B as first-line therapies for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with haematological malignancy and prolonged neutropenia or who were undergoing haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in Germany or Spain.

Methods

A decision analytic model based on a decision tree was constructed to estimate the potential treatment costs of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B. Each model pathway was defined by the probability of an event occurring and the costs of clinical outcomes. Outcome probabilities and cost inputs were derived from the published literature, clinical trials, expert panels and local database costs. In the base case, patients who failed to respond to first-line therapy were assumed to experience a single switch between comparator drugs or the other drug was added as second-line treatment. Base-case evaluation included only drug-management costs and additional hospitalisation costs due to severe AEs associated with first- and second-line therapies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Cost estimates were inflated to 2011 euros (€).

Results

Based on clinical trial success rates of 52.8% (voriconazole) and 50.0% (liposomal amphotericin B), voriconazole had lower total treatment costs compared with liposomal amphotericin B in both Germany (€12,256 versus €18,133; length of therapy [LOT] = 10-day intravenous [IV] + 5-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B) and Spain (€8,032 versus €10,516; LOT = 7-day IV + 8-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B). Assuming the same efficacy (50.0%) in first-line therapy, voriconazole maintained a lower total treatment cost compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Cost savings were primarily due to the lower drug acquisition costs and shorter IV LOT associated with voriconazole. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to drug price, particularly the cost of liposomal amphotericin B.

Conclusions

Voriconazole is likely to be cost-saving compared with liposomal amphotericin B when used as a first-line treatment for IA in Germany and Spain.

Analyzing overall survival in randomized controlled trials with crossover and implications for economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Offering patients in oncology trials the opportunity to cross over to active treatment at disease progression is a common strategy to address ethical issues associated with placebo controls but may lead to statistical challenges in the analysis of overall survival and cost-effectiveness because crossover leads to information loss and dilution of comparative clinical efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

We provide an overview of how to address crossover, implications for risk-effect estimates of survival (hazard ratios) and cost-effectiveness, and how this influences decisions of reimbursement agencies. Two case studies using data from two phase III sunitinib oncology trials are used as illustration.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on statistical methods for adjusting for crossover and recent health technology assessment decisions in oncology.

RESULTS

We show that for a trial with a high proportion of crossover from the control arm to the investigational arm, the choice of the statistical method greatly affects treatment-effect estimates and cost-effectiveness because the range of relative mortality risk for active treatment versus control is broad. With relatively frequent crossover, one should consider either the inverse probability of censoring weighting or the rank-preserving structural failure time model to minimize potential bias, with choice dependent on crossover characteristics, trial size, and available data. A large proportion of crossover favors the rank-preserving structural failure time model, while large sample size and abundant information about confounding factors favors the inverse probability of censoring weighting model. When crossover is very infrequent, methods yield similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to correct for crossover may lead to suboptimal decisions by pricing and reimbursement authorities, thereby limiting an effective drug's potential.

Modeling the economic impact of linezolid versus vancomycin in confirmed nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Introduction

We compared the economic impacts of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)–confirmed nosocomial pneumonia.

Methods

We used a 4-week decision tree model incorporating published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use and costs (in 2012 US dollars), such as efficacy, mortality, serious adverse events, treatment duration and length of hospital stay. The results presented are from a US payer perspective. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia was 10 days. Clinical treatment success (used for the cost-effectiveness ratio) and failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events or mortality were possible clinical outcomes that could impact costs. Cost of treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness per successfully treated patient were calculated for linezolid versus vancomycin. Univariate (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results

The model allowed us to calculate the total base case inpatient costs as $46,168 (linezolid) and $46,992 (vancomycin). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with lower costs ($824 less) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia). Approximately 80% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). The results of our probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that linezolid is the cost-effective alternative under varying willingness to pay thresholds.

Conclusion

These model results show that linezolid has a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia, largely attributable to the higher clinical trial response rate of patients treated with linezolid. The higher drug acquisition cost of linezolid was offset by lower treatment failure–related costs and fewer days of hospitalization.

Characterizing fatigue associated with sunitinib and its impact on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Using phase 3 trial data for sunitinib versus interferon (IFN)-α in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, retrospective analyses characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue and its impact on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day on a schedule of 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (375 patients) or IFN-α at a dose of 9 MU subcutaneously 3 times per week (360 patients). HRQoL was self-assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-15-item (FKSI-15) questionnaire, with fatigue assessed using its Disease-Related Symptoms subscale. Fatigue was also assessed by providers using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). A repeated-measures model (M1) and random intercept-slope model (M2) characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue over time. Another repeated-measures model examined the relationship between HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue grade.

RESULTS

M1 demonstrated that the initial increase in patient-reported fatigue with sunitinib was worst during cycle 1, with mean values numerically better at subsequent cycles; most pairwise comparisons of consecutive CTCAE fatigue cycle means were not found to be statistically significant. M2 demonstrated that the overall trend (slope) for patient-reported and CTCAE fatigue with sunitinib was not statistically different from 0. The relationship between most HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue was close to linear regardless of treatment, with lower scores (worse HRQoL) corresponding to higher fatigue grade. The majority of HRQoL scores were better with sunitinib versus IFN-α for the same CTCAE fatigue grade.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reported worse fatigue during the first sunitinib cycle. However, in subsequent consecutive cycles, less fatigue was reported with no statistically significant worsening. CTCAE fatigue assessment may not fully capture patient treatment experience.

Clinical and economic burden of invasive fungal diseases in Europe: focus on pre-emptive and empirical treatment of Aspergillus and Candida species

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have been widely studied in recent years, largely because of the increasing population at risk. Aspergillus and Candida species remain the most common causes of IFDs, but other fungi are emerging. The early and accurate diagnosis of IFD is critical to outcome and the optimisation of treatment. Rapid diagnostic methods and new antifungal therapies have advanced disease management in recent years. Strategies for the prevention and treatment of IFDs include prophylaxis, and empirical and pre-emptive therapy. Here, we review the available primary literature on the clinical and economic burden of IFDs in Europe from 2000 to early 2011, with a focus on the value and outcomes of different approaches.

Quality of life predicts progression-free survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib versus interferon alfa

In a randomized phase III trial, sunitinib was associated with significantly superior progression-free survival when compared with interferon alfa as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This article investigates whether baseline quality of life and demographic and clinical variables were predictive for progression-free survival.

Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib vs interferon-alpha in a phase III trial: final results and geographical analysis

BACKGROUND

In a randomised phase III trial, sunitinib significantly improved efficacy over interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We report the final health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results.

METHODS

Patients (n=750) received oral sunitinib 50 mg per day in 6-week cycles (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off treatment) or subcutaneous IFN-alpha 9 million units three times weekly. Health-related quality of life was assessed with nine end points: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and its four subscales, FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-15) and its Disease-Related Symptoms subscale (FKSI-DRS), and EQ-5D questionnaire's EQ-5D Index and visual analogue scale. Data were analysed using mixed-effects model (MM), supplemented with pattern-mixture models (PMM), for the total sample and the US and European Union (EU) subgroups.

RESULTS

Patients receiving sunitinib reported better scores in the primary end point, FKSI-DRS, across all patient populations (P<0.05), and in nine, five, and six end points in the total sample, in the US and EU groups respectively (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the US and EU groups for all end points with the exception of the FKSI item 'I am bothered by side effects of treatment' (P=0.02). In general, MM and PMM results were similar.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with sunitinib in this study had improved HRQoL, compared with patients treated with IFN-alpha. Treatment differences within the US cohort did not differ from those within the EU cohort.

Using the Rasch model to validate and enhance the interpretation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index--Disease-Related Symptoms scale

OBJECTIVES

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) was developed to assess patients' kidney-cancer-related symptoms. The Rasch rating scale, a one-parameter logistic item response model, may enhance FKSI-DRS interpretation and validate its measurement properties.

METHODS

We applied the Rasch model to FKSI-DRS data from a randomized phase 3 trial in which first-line sunitinib therapy showed superiority to interferon-alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Of 750 enrolled patients, 668 patients completed the questionnaire on cycle 1, day 28 and were evaluated in the current study. The nine FKSI-DRS items were analyzed to enhance interpretation of the summary score by using an item characteristic curve that related score to probability of reporting specific symptoms.

RESULTS

The Rasch model fitted the FKSI-DRS well: 8 of 9 items had acceptable infit and outfit statistics (<1.5, >0.5); item difficulty spanned a wide range (-3.23 to 1.64 logits); and the five response categories performed adequately. The item characteristic curve offered enhanced interpretation of FKSI-DRS: For example, an FKSI-DRS score of 27 (mean baseline score for total sample) indicated a 47% chance of reporting "no" to "lack of energy," although a two-point difference between sunitinib and interferon-alfa, averaged across all assessments (29 vs. 27), corresponded to sunitinib achieving a 28% increase (13% absolute difference) in the probability of reporting "no" to "lack of energy" (60% vs. 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggest that the FKSI-DRS is an adequate measure of symptom status in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The Rasch model supports its validation and enhances its interpretation.

Quality of life (QOL) with sunitinib versus interferon-alfa (IFN-α) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Final results

6529

Background: In an international, randomized phase 3 trial (Figlin et al, ASCO. 2008), sunitinib showed superior progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and objective response rate over IFN-α (11 vs. 5 mo and 47% vs. 12%, respectively; p < 0.000001) as first-line mRCC therapy, with a median overall survival of more than 2 years. Here, we report the final health-related QOL results from this trial. Methods: 750 treatment-naïve mRCC patients were randomized 1:1 to receive sunitinib 50 mg orally once-daily in recurring cycles of 4 weeks on drug and 2 weeks off or IFN-α 9 MU subcutaneously thrice-weekly. QOL was measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), which has 4 subscales, the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-15 item (FKSI-15), which includes a Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale, and the EQ-5D questionnaire's utility index (EQ-5D Index) and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). The primary QOL endpoint was FKSI-DRS. Higher scores indicated better outcomes. Patients completed questionnaires on days 1 and 28 of each cycle. Data were analyzed for the intent-to-treat population using mixed-effects models (MM), supplemented with pattern-mixture models (PMM). We also compared QOL of patients in the United States (US) with patients in the European Union (EU; France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and United Kingdom). Results: Patients on sunitinib reported better FKSI-15 and FKSI-DRS scores than those on IFN-α, with a significant difference in the overall means across cycles (4.06 and 2.36, respectively; p < 0.0001; MM). Similarly, differences in means for FACT-G (and all subscales), EQ-5D Index, and EQ-VAS all significantly favored sunitinib (p < 0.05). Based on pre-set, required minimum score differences, between-treatment differences in the mean scores were clinically meaningful for FKSI-15, FKSI-DRS, FACT-G, and the FACT-G functional well-being subscale. Between-treatment differences were similar for both the US and EU populations. Across all analyses, results from PMM were similar to those from MM. Conclusions: Sunitinib provides superior QOL over IFN-α, in addition to superior efficacy, as first-line mRCC therapy.

[Table: see text]

Economic evaluation of sunitinib versus other new targeted therapies as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the United States

e17556

Background: RCC, the most prevalent kidney cancer, is a relatively rare malignancy that carries a poor prognosis. New targeted therapies, such as sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab + interferon-alfa (IFN-α), are now available in the US for the treatment of mRCC. In the absence of head-to-head trials, the aim of this analysis was to assess the economic value of these therapies as first-line treatment of mRCC from a U.S. third-party payer perspective, using an indirect comparison based on reported survival data. Methods: An economic model was built to simulate progression-free and overall survival based on each treatment's hazard ratio against IFN-α as reported from phase II and III clinical trials. Clinical model parameters were also derived from these trials and complemented with clinical experts’ opinions. Costs of drugs, routine follow-up, treatment-related adverse events, disease progression, and best supportive care of terminally-ill patients were included in the model. Results, expressed as life-years (LY), progression-free LY (PFLY), and quality adjusted LY (QALY) gained, treatment costs (applied in 2008 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), were obtained through probabilistic analysis over a 10-year time horizon. Since the phase III clinical trial of temsirolimus included the MSKCC (modified) poor risk group patients only, two separate evaluations were carried out: (1) comparison of sunitinib, sorafenib, and bevacizumab + IFN-α in all patients and (2) a similar comparison of sunitinib and temsirolimus in the poor-risk group patients only. Results: In the first comparison model, sunitinib was both more effective (with gains of 0.52 and 0.19 PFLY, and 0.17 and 0.03 QALY) and less costly (by $13,675 and $84,260) than sorafenib and bevacizumab + IFN-α, respectively, over 10 years. Similarly, sunitinib was both more effective (with gains of 0.12 PFLY and 0.07 QALY) and less costly (saving $9,605 over ten years) than temsirolimus in patients in the poor risk group. Conclusions: These model results suggest that sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib, bevacizumab + IFN-α, and temsirolimus as a first-line treatment of mRCC.

[Table: see text]

A retrospective study of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease: cerebrovascular disease as a predictor of patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Dementia may be caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), or a combination of both. When CVD is associated with dementia, survival is thought to be reduced. It is unclear whether treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), which has been found to slow disease progression in AD patients, has similar benefits in vascular forms of dementia.

OBJECTIVES

The present study was designed to determine whether co-existing CVD is associated with survival or time to nursing home placement (NHP) among AD patients treated with ChEIs. Findings of poorer outcomes in patients with versus without CVD might argue against the use of ChEIs for AD patients in whom CVD co-exists.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using the Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec (RAMQ) databases to examine the time to NHP or death for AD patients aged 66+, with or without CVD, treated with ChEIs between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. Because ChEIs are approved only for AD in Canada, a ChEI prescription was used as a surrogate for an AD diagnosis. Separate analyses were performed for patients with persistent ChEI use and those who discontinued ChEI therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 4428 patients met inclusion criteria for AD with CVD; 13 512 were classified as having AD alone. For the composite endpoint of NHP or death, 1000-day survival rates were lower among AD patients with versus without CVD (p < 0.01), but absolute differences were very small (84 vs. 86% with continuous ChEI use; 77 vs. 78% with discontinuous ChEI therapy). Of the secondary endpoints, time to death was shorter for patients with versus without CVD, but time to NHP did not differ between groups.

LIMITATIONS

Results may have been affected by selection (misclassification) bias and between-group differences in smoking, body mass index, and duration of ChEI therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between co-existing CVD and time to NHP or death appeared to be of little clinical relevance among AD patients treated with ChEIs. The lack of difference between AD patients with and without CVD suggests that CVD should not be used as a reason to deny AD patients access to ChEI treatment.

Economic Evaluation of Sunitinib Malate for the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose

To assess the cost effectiveness and cost utility of sunitinib malate as a first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) compared with interferon-alfa (IFN-α) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) from a US societal perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to simulate disease progression and to determine progression-free survival, total life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Model parameters were derived from the pivotal trial of sunitinib, published literature, government sources, and clinical experts’ opinions. The model included trial-based adverse events (AEs). Costs of drug treatment, routine follow-up, AEs, disease progression, and best supportive care (BSC) of terminally ill patients were included. Results were tested using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Treatment with sunitinib is associated with a gain in progression-free years of 0.41 and 0.35 over IFN-α and IL-2. The estimated gains over IFN-α were 0.11 LYs and 0.14 QALYs, and over IL-2 were 0.24 LYs and 0.20 QALYs. Both IFN-α and sunitinib treatments dominate IL-2 treatment; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of sunitinib versus IFN-α was $18,611 per progression-free year gained and $67,215 per LY gained, and the cost-utility ratio is $52,593 per QALY gained (at a 5% discount rate). Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to utility values during treatment, the cost of sunitinib, and the cost of BSC. Model results were robust to changes in other model variables.

Conclusion

These results suggest that sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to IFN-α as a first-line treatment for mRCC.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib or interferon alfa: results from a phase III randomized trial

PURPOSE

In an international, randomized phase III trial, sunitinib demonstrated statistically significant efficacy over interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) (progression-free survival time, 11 v 5 months, respectively; P < .001; objective response rate, 31% v 6%, respectively; P < .001). We report health-related quality-of-life (QOL) results from this trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seven hundred fifty mRCC patients were randomly assigned to sunitinib (6-week cycles: 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off) or IFN-alpha (9 million units subcutaneous injections, three times weekly). QOL measures included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-15 item (FKSI-15), and the EuroQoL-5D's utility score (EQ-5D Index) and its visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). The primary QOL end point was the FKSI Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale. Higher scores indicated better outcomes (better QOL or fewer symptoms). Data were analyzed for the intent-to-treat population using mixed-effects models, supplemented with pattern-mixture models.

RESULTS

Patients receiving sunitinib reported higher FKSI-15 and FKSI-DRS scores at each cycle than those receiving IFN-alpha, with a significant difference in the overall least squares means (3.27 and 1.98, respectively; P < .0001). Similarly, differences in least squares means for FACT-G (and all subscales), EQ-5D Index, and EQ-VAS were all significantly favorable for sunitinib (P < .01). Per pre-established thresholds, between-treatment differences in the mean scores were clinically meaningful after cycle 4 for FKSI-DRS and at all assessments for FKSI-15, FACT-G, and the FACT-G functional well-being subscale.

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib provides superior QOL compared with IFN-alpha in mRCC patients.

Epidemiologic and socioeconomic burden of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a literature review

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the most common form of kidney cancer, initially has an asymptomatic clinical course; 25-30% of patients present with metastatic disease at time of diagnosis. Worldwide incidence and mortality rates are rising at a rate of approximately 2-3% per decade. Metastatic RCC (mRCC) is one of the most treatment-resistant malignancies; outcomes are generally poor and median survival after diagnosis is less than one year. Surgery and chemotherapy have limited or no effect, leaving mRCC patients underserved in the realm of cancer treatment. As the world's population ages and the prevalence of risk factors (obesity, hypertension) increases, the burden of mRCC is predicted to increase significantly. With a shift in treatment of mRCC to novel therapies, such as molecularly targeted therapies (MTTs) (e.g., sorafenib and sunitinib), clinicians, payers, and other healthcare decision-makers must re-evaluate the optimal role for new treatments. Timely understanding of the burden of mRCC on individuals and society clearly is needed at this juncture. Using a comprehensive literature review, we assessed the epidemiologic, economic, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) burdens of mRCC. The annual incidence of mRCC in major European countries, the US, and Japan ranges from 1500 to 8600 cases. However, prevalence data were lacking. The estimated economic burden of mRCC is large; $107-$556 million (2006 USD) in the US and $446 million-$1.6 billion (2006 USD) collectively in select countries worldwide. MTTs have potential to reduce the burden of mRCC and provide substantial value beyond their clinical effectiveness.

The epidemiologic, health-related quality of life, and economic burden of gastrointestinal stromal tumours

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are uncommon tumours believed to arise from interstitial cells of Cajal or their precursors in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, accounting for a small percentage of GI neoplasms and sarcomas. Given the recent recognition of GIST as a distinct cancer, as well as new treatment options available today, a review of the epidemiologic, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and economic burden of GIST is timely from a payer, provider and patient perspective and may provide guidance for treatment decision making and reimbursement.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of PubMed and five scientific meeting databases, was conducted to identify published studies and abstracts describing the epidemiologic, HRQL and economic impact of GIST. Publications deemed worthy of further review, based on the information available in the abstract, were retrieved in full text.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thirty-four publications met the review criteria: 29 provided data on GIST epidemiology, one provided cost data, three reported HRQL outcomes, and one reported cost and HRQL outcomes. The annual incidence of GIST (cases per million) ranged from 6.8 in the USA to 14.5 in Sweden, with an estimated 5-year survival rate of 45-64%. On the Functional Illness of Chronic Therapy-fatigue instrument, GIST patients scored 40.0 compared with 37.6 in anaemic cancer patients (0 = worst; 52 = least fatigue). Total costs over 10 years for managing GIST patients with molecularly targeted treatment was estimated at pounds 47 521- pounds 56 146 per patient compared with pounds 4047- pounds 4230 per patient with best supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of GIST appears to be similar by country; the lower estimate in one country could be explained by differences in method of case ascertainment. Data suggest that the HRQL burden of GIST is similar to that with other cancers although this requires further exploration. The value of new therapies in GIST needs to consider not only cost but also anticipated benefits and the unmet medical need in this condition.

Economic evaluations of sunitinib versus interferon-alfa (IFN-α) in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

6607

Background: A randomized phase III trial of sunitinib vs. IFN-a as first-line therapy for patients with mRCC is ongoing. An interim analysis of this study demonstrated superiority for the primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), in the sunitinib arm vs. the IFN-a arm (median PFS = 11 months [95% CI: 10–12] vs. 4 months [95% CI: 4–6]; P<0.000001). Because of the clinical significance of these results, the objective of this study was to demonstrate the economic value of sunitinib vs. IFN-a in this setting from a US third-party payer perspective. Methods: Two Markov models with a 5- and 10-year time horizon were developed to evaluate the cost- effectiveness of sunitinib vs. IFN-a. The models projected survival and costs in 6-week cycles based on extrapolation of the trial survival data. Model 1 looked at first-line treatment followed by palliative care only, while Model 2 incorporated second-line treatment. Effectiveness was measured in terms of progression-free months (PFM) in Model 1, and life-years (LY) gained and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) gained in Model 2. Resource utilization included drugs, tests, scans, monitoring, physician visits, hospitalizations and treatment of adverse events. Costs and survival benefits were discounted annually at 3% and 5% in Model 1 and 2, respectively. All costs were adjusted to 2006 US dollars. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Projected PFS and overall survival were longer for sunitinib than for IFN-a. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of sunitinib vs. IFN-a over 5- and 10-years were $7,769 and $7,782/PFM, respectively, in Model 1. Model 2 results at 10 years were $67,215/LY and $52,593/QALY gained. The key drivers of the model results were survival and sunitinib drug costs. Both models were robust in the tested scenarios. Conclusions: Both analyses found that sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to IFN-a as first-line treatment in mRCC, with cost-effectiveness ratios within the established threshold that society is willing to pay for health benefits (i.e. $50,000–100,000/LY or QALY).

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Quality of life (QOL) predicts for progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib compared to interferon-alpha (IFN-α)

6594

Background: In a recent international, randomized phase III trial, sunitinib malate, an oral multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFRs, PDGFRs, KIT, RET and FLT3 with both antitumor and antiangiogenic effects, was associated with statistically superior clinical efficacy and superior health-related QOL vs. IFN-a as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC (Motzer et al, Proc ASCO 2006;24:2s [Abstract LBA3]). Here we report a substudy of baseline QOL variables predicting PFS. Methods: 750 mRCC patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily in repeated 6-week cycles (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off) or IFN-a (9 MU via subcutaneous injection 3 times weekly). QOL was measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index's Disease-Related Symptoms subscale (FKSI-DRS), and the patient self-rated overall health state (EQ-VAS) from the EuroQol Group's EQ-5D self-report questionnaire. For all QOL endpoints, higher scores indicated better outcomes (better QOL or fewer symptoms). Cox proportional-hazards model was used to test which baseline QOL variables predict PFS while controlling for other baseline demographic and clinical factors as well as treatment. Because the three QOL scores are correlated (r=0.61–0.69), three separate univariate models were fitted. Results and Conclusions: All three baseline QOL variables were predictive of PFS: better baseline FACT-G, FKSI-DRS and EQ-VAS scores were associated with longer PFS. When QOL and other baseline variables were controlled in the models, the superior treatment effect of sunitinib on PFS remained robust and large (See the table below).

[Table: see text]