Search

To assess the feasibility of implementing multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to select the criteria for preparing a national MCDA framework for health technology assessment of orphan drugs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

Background: The combinations of BRAF + MEK inhibitors—encorafenib (ENC) + binimetinib (BIN), cobimetinib (COB) + vemurafenib (VEM), and dabrafenib (DAB) + trametinib (TRA)—are recommended for the treatment of BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma.Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM versus DAB + TRA from a US payer perspective.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort over a time horizon of 10 years. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were independently digitized from a randomized controlled trial for ENC + BIN and fitted using R software. Published and indirectly estimated hazard ratios were used to fit OS and PFS curves for COB + VEM and DAB + TRA. Costs, life-year gains, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the 3 treatment combinations were estimated. A base case analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). A discount rate of 3.5% was applied on cost and outcomes.Results: The ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM comparison was associated with an ICUR of $656 233 per QALY gained. The ENC + BIN versus DAB + TRA comparison was associated with an ICUR of $3 135 269 per QALY gained. The DAB + TRA combination dominated COB + VEM. The base case analysis estimates were confirmed by the PSA estimates. ENC + BIN was the most cost-effective combination at a high willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $573 000 per QALY and $1.5 million/QALY when compared to COB + VEM and DAB + TRA, respectively.Conclusion and Relevance: Given current prices and acceptable WTP thresholds, our study suggests that DAB + TRA is the optimum treatment. In this study, ENC + BIN was cost-effective only at a very high WTP per QALY threshold.

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has developed a well-defined strategy to restructure the health sector and operate on value-based principles. Biosimilars are a viable option for increasing accessibility while lowering health-care costs.Areas coveredWe describe the current and future biosimilar landscape in KSA. We discuss the growth of the biosimilar market, the regulatory approval process, biosimilar adoption, and the potential impact on health-care systems and patient outcomes.Expert opinionThe biosimilar market in KSA is expanding and expected to continue this trajectory in the coming decade. The growth of the market is influenced by the KSA health transformation initiative, the well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars set by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), and the adoption of biosimilars by health-care providers. Overall, the biosimilar regulation is evolving and the future of biosimilars looks promising in KSA. Biosimilars offer a more cost-effective alternative, which can help to expand access to more treatment options for patients and contribute to cost saving for the health-care system.

ABSTRACTBackground:The risk of immune-related(ir)-hypothyroidism in older patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 therapies is poorly understood, especially in the real-world setting.Research design and methods:We identified older patients (≥65 years) diagnosed with advanced melanoma between 2011-2015 and treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 agents in the SEER-Medicare database. Applying probability-of-treatment-weighting for confounder adjustment and proportional hazards models, we estimated the risk of ir-hypothyroidism between treatment initiation and up to 90 days from last dose between anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 users.Results:Of 210 older patients with advanced melanoma identified, 164 received anti-CTLA4 (ipilimumab) and 46 anti-PD1 agents (11 nivolumab, 35 pembrolizumab). There was no statistically significant difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 users (HR=2.15, 95%CI=0.83-5.53). Pairwise medication comparisons showed a lower risk among ipilimumab versus nivolumab (HR=0.15, 95%CI=0.06-0.40) and pembrolizumab versus nivolumab users (HR=0.13, 95%CI=0.03-0.55). Sensitivity analyses using an all-stages melanoma cohort did not show a difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between medication classes and individual medications.Conclusions:This retrospective claims data analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 users. However, patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab may have a lower ir-hypothyroidism risk compared to nivolumab users.

ABSTRACTObjectives: To estimate the pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to proton pump inhibitors.Methods: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant studies. The authors quantified pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to PPIs, expressed as the pooled (adjusted) odds ratio (OR/aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) in overall and sensitivity analyses.Results: One randomized trial, two cohort, four case-control, and five nested case-control studies with 700,178 subjects (73,985 cases; 626,193 controls) were retained. PPI exposure was associated with pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.75, 95%CI = 1.12–2.72, I2 = 99%); confirmed in sensitivity analyses for high-quality studies, observational studies, case-control studies, studies with pancreatic cancer as the primary outcome, and in sensitivity analyses for diabetes and obesity but not for pancreatitis and smoking. This association was independent of the duration and Defined Daily Dose of PPI exposure. Rabeprazole had a singular significant association with pancreatic cancer (OR = 5.40, 95%CI = 1.98–14.703, I2 = 87.9%).Conclusion: The class of PPIs is associated with a 1.75-fold increase in pancreatic cancer risk, confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

Multimodal and multidomain strategies are currently recommended for the management of chronic pain. However, there is little information available on how individuals (opioid users versus nonusers) with chronic pain use multimodal strategies in pain management.

The authors of 2 large randomized trials have recently published their findings related to the effects of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (the HARMONY trial) and a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (the CARMELINA trial) on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In light of these new data, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors in CV outcome trials to assess their CV safety in patients with type 2 diabetes.

IMPORTANCE: A phase 2 trial comparing talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab vs ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma found no differential benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) but noted objective response rates (ORRs) of 38.8% (38 of 98 patients) vs 18.0% (18 of 100 patients), respectively. OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab combination therapy vs ipilimumab monotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For PFS, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses using a 2-state Markov model (PFS vs progression or death) was performed. For ORRs, cost-effectiveness analysis of the incremental cost of 1 additional patient achieving objective response was performed. In this setting based on a US payer perspective (2017 US dollars), participants were patients with advanced unresectable melanoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The PFS life-years and PFS quality-adjusted life-years were determined, and the associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were estimated. Also estimated was the ICER per 1 additional patient (out of 100 treated patients) achieving objective response. Base-case analyses were validated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In PFS analyses, the cost of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($494 983) exceeded the cost of ipilimumab monotherapy ($132 950) by $362 033. The ICER was $2 129 606 per PFS life-years, and the ICUR was $2 262 706 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded an ICER of $1 481 208 per PFS life-year gained and an ICUR of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS hazard ratio and the utility of response were the most influential parameters. Talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab has a 50% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In ORR analyses, talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($474 904) vs ipilimumab alone ($132 810), a $342 094 difference, yielded an ICER of $1 629 019 per additional patient achieving objective response. In subgroup analyses by disease stage and BRAFV600E mutation status, ICERs ranged from $1 069 044 to $17 104 700 per 1 additional patient achieving objective response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The cost to gain 1 additional progression-free quality-adjusted life-year, 1 additional progression-free life-year, or to have 1 additional patient attain objective response is about $1.6 million. This amount may be beyond what payers typically are willing to pay. Combination therapy of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab does not offer an economically beneficial treatment option relative to ipilimumab monotherapy at the population level. This should not preclude treatment for individual patients for whom this regimen may be indicated.

Background. Although several new treatments are available for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), most patients eventually relapse at a median time of 8.0 months (95%CI: 6.3-8.9). Patients with relapsed and refractory MM (R/R MM) who have had several lines of previous therapy or who are refractory to lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors require alternative options. Daratumumab and isatuximab are monoclonal antibodies that bind to the human CD38 receptor. Phase II/III clinical trials showed that isatuximab (ISA) or daratumumab (DARA) in combination with pomalidomide (POM-d) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEXA) significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with R/R MM. No studies have assessed the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of both regimens in management of R/R MM. We performed an indirect comparison of both regimens in terms of PFS and overall survival (OS) and evaluated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of DARA+POM-d+DEXA and ISA+POM-d+DEXA from a US payer's perspective.

Background: The use of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (anti-CTLA4) therapy (ipilimumab) and anti-programmed cell-death 1 (anti-PD1) agents (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) in advanced melanoma have been associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including colitis. We aimed to estimate the incidence and the risk of colitis in elderly patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 in the real-world setting.Methods: Elderly patients (age ⩾ 65 years) diagnosed with advanced melanoma between 2011 and 2015 and treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 agents were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data. We estimated the risk of colitis from start of treatment up to 90 days from the last dose of therapy. We used the log-rank test and logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. We conducted several sensitivity analyses.Results: A total of 274 elderly patients with advanced melanoma were included in our cohort. The risk of colitis was similar between anti-PD1 users and anti-CTLA4 users based on log-rank test (p= 0.17) and logistic regression [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.04–2.79]. Sensitivity analyses for patients with all-stage melanoma showed a significantly lower risk of colitis in anti-PD1 compared with anti-CTLA4 treated patients based on log-rank test (p= 0.017) and logistic regression (OR = 0.21, 95%CI 0.09–0.53).Conclusion: Elderly with advanced melanoma treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 had a similar risk of developing colitis. However, there was a statistically significant difference in the risk of colitis between anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 users among all-stage-melanoma patients.Plain Language Summary Risk of colitis (inflammation of the large intestine) in elderly patients with melanoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (a group of medications that uses the patient’s immune system to fight cancer) While the anti-cancer agents known as immune-checkpoint inhibitors have had a great impact on the treatment of melanoma, they may also have side effects. This study estimated the risk of colitis, a chronic inflammation of the colon, in elderly patients with melanoma treated with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (anti-CTLA4) or anti-programmed cell-death 1 (anti-PD1) agents, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked database. Overall, we found that the risk of colitis was not different between anti-PD1 users and anti-CTLA4 users with advanced-stage melanoma. However, after including patients across all stages of melanoma, we found a significantly lower risk of colitis with anti-PD1 compared with anti-CTLA4.

Objective.To evaluate the validity and reliability evidence of the preceptor assessment of student tool (PAST) which was designed to assess doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) student rotation performance.