Search

To assess the cost-efficiency and expanded access of three rituximab biosimilars versus the reference rituximab from the perspective of the Jordanian national health payer. A 1-year cost-efficiency and expanded access model of conversion from reference rituximab (Mabthera) to the approved biosimilars (Truxima, Rixathon, and Tromax) to assess five metrics: total annual cost to treat a hypothetical patient; head-to-head cost comparison; changes in patients' access to rituximab; number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to provide an additional 10 patients access to a rituximab treatment; and relative amount of Jordanian Dinar (JOD) spent on rituximab options. The model included rituximab doses at 100 mg/10 ml and 500 mg/50 ml and considered both cost-saving and cost-wastage scenarios. Costs of treatments were based on the fiscal year 2022 tender prices received by the Joint Procurement Department (JPD). Rixathon was associated with the lowest average annual cost per patient (JOD2,860) across all six indications among all rituximab comparators, followed by Truxima (JOD4,240), Tromax (JOD4,365) and reference Mabthera (JOD11,431). The highest percentage of patient access to rituximab treatment (321%) was achieved when switching patients from Mabthera to Rixathon in the RA and PV indications. At four patients, Rixathon was associated with the lowest NNC to provide an additional 10 patients access to rituximab treatment. For each JOD1 spent on Rixathon, an additional JOD3.21 must be spent on Mabthera, an additional JOD0.55 on Tromax, and an additional JOD0.53 on Truxima. Rituximab biosimilars were associated with cost savings in all approved indications in Jordan compared to reference rituximab. Rixathon was associated with the lowest annual cost, the highest percentage of expanded patient access for all six indications, and the lowest NNC providing 10 additional patients with access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV. Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective. In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seven prospective real-world studies conducted in general practices in Belgium of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan-centric regimens were pooled to examine similarities and differences in determinants of blood pressure (BP) values (mmHg) and BP control rates between female and male patients. Pooled analysis of a total evaluable sample of 17,044 patients, including 8273 (48.5%) women and 8771 men (51.5%) treated over approximately 90 days with valsartan-centric regimens in second or later line. Hierarchical linear and logistic regressions were applied to identify patient- and physician-related determinants of BP outcomes and a potential physician class effect. Reductions in BP (mmHg) over 90 days were similar for women and men, and so were changes in BP control rates. Approximately a quarter of the variance in 90 day BP values was attributable to a physician class effect. Both gender groups shared some patient- and physician-related determinants of BP outcomes, though often varying in degree of influence. Analyses also revealed gender-specific determinants. Among others, modifiable/manageable patient-related determinants included BP at hypertension diagnosis (proxy for time of diagnosis), risk factors, antihypertensive treatment and adherence; while among the physician-related determinants clinical experience in hypertension treatment was modifiable/manageable. Valsartan-centric treatment regimens are associated with significant reductions in BP level and improvement in BP control in both women and men. The determinants revealed in modeling provide guidance to clinicians in the common and differential management of hypertension in female and male patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Six prospective real-world studies of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan-centric regimens were pooled to: (1) examine the effectiveness of ~90 days of second- or later-line valsartan treatment in hypertensive patients with known comorbidities; and (2) identify physician- and patient-related determinants associated with systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) outcomes in these patients. Methods and materials: A pooled analysis was performed of an evaluable sample of 11,999 hypertensive patients with known comorbidities treated ~90 days with valsartan-centric regimens. We applied hierarchical linear and logistic regression models to identify determinants of blood pressure (BP) outcomes and a potential physician class effect. Results: Valsartan regimens resulted in mean (SD) SBP and DBP reductions of 18.0 (15.8) mmHg and 9.5 (10.1) mmHg, respectively, at ~90 days, yielding SBP, DBP and combined SBP/DBP control rates of 44.0%, 67.2% and 39.3%, respectively. About a quarter of the variance in 90 day BP values was attributable to a physician class effect. BP outcomes declined with physicians' increasing years in practice and being male. At the patient level, BP outcomes declined with SBP and DBP at diagnosis; diabetes; higher cholesterol and BMI; lower valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) doses; and concomitant anti-hypertensives. Older age was associated with improved DBP. A proxy of physician vigilance, cardiovascular disease history, was associated with improved BP outcomes, as were patient adherence and higher doses of valsartan in combination with HCTZ. Conclusions: Valsartan-centric regimens have significant BP lowering benefits in this pooled sample of patients with known comorbidities. Many observed determinants of BP outcomes are modifiable or manageable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]