Search

Introduction: Chronic immune thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP) in adults is a serious autoimmune disease in which platelets are prematurely destroyed, leaving the patient vulnerable to bruising and bleeding. Initial treatment starts with corticosteroids. In patients who become resistant or intolerant to corticosteroids, the thrombopoietic agents (TPOs), consisting of romiplostim (ROM), eltrombopag (ELT), and avatrombopag (AVA), or the spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor fostamatinib (FOS), are appropriate next lines of therapy. In this study, the comparative safety, effectiveness, and cost of care between fostamatinib and the TPOs were evaluated in a real-world setting., Methods: A retrospective analysis of 17 community hematology practices across the USA was conducted to identify adult ITP patients who received one of the four agents. Data collection consisted of patient demographics, disease characteristics, as well as number and type of prior treatments. From the first day until the end of treatment, data were also collected on platelet (PLT) counts, adverse events, the use of rescue IVIG, platelet transfusions, and corticosteroids. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare PLT-related endpoints between agents., Results: A sample of 179 ITP patients who had received at least one of the four agents was identified. This resulted in a final sample of 51, 87, 127, and 44 patients who received FOS, ELT, ROM, or AVA, respectively. At month six, there were no significant differences between FOS and the TPOs in terms of the proportion of patients with the PLT count being ≥30 × 103/μL, ≥50 × 103/μL as well as the proportion of patients whose PLT levels doubled relative to baseline. The frequency of thromboembolic events (TEs) was 3.9% in FOS patients compared to 9.2%, 4.7%, and 11.4% in the ELT, ROM, and AVA groups. The mean cost per patient with FOS was $99,209 (95% CI: $59,595-$115,074), compared to $92,426 (95% CI: $68,331-$115,519), $108,482 (95% CI: $84,782-$132,182), and $131,050 (95% CI: $83,327-$179,897) for ELT, ROM, or AVA, respectively., Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, FOS was comparable to the TPOs in maintaining PLTs at clinically beneficial levels. Given these findings, the choice of therapy should be based on overall patient safety, preexisting risk factors for TEs, and cost effectiveness., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

BACKGROUND: Promacta (eltrombopag; EPAG) and Nplate (romiplostim; ROMI) have not been compared in head-to-head trials for treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia (cITP); however, indirect treatment comparisons have indicated similar efficacy and safety outcomes, and the drugs are generally accepted as therapeutic alternatives. OBJECTIVE: To determine which of the 2 therapies would result in the lowest overall cost from a US health plan perspective, under the assumption of equivalent clinical efficacy and safety. METHODS: A cost-minimization model was developed in Microsoft Excel. The model incorporated only costs that differ between the treatments, including drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs, over a 52-week horizon. Average dosing for EPAG and ROMI was taken from the long-term EXTEND trial and from a published metaanalysis of 14 clinical trials, respectively. ROMI is injectable and EPAG is oral, so only ROMI had administration costs. The model assumed patients used 25 mg EPAG tablets and the 250 μg vial size of ROMI. ROMI wastage was included in drug acquisition costs by rounding up average dose to the nearest whole vial. Monitoring requirements were determined from US prescribing information, with platelet monitoring assumed equal, and hepatic panel testing every 4 weeks for EPAG. The model was adjustable to commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plan perspectives, with optional inclusion of drug wastage, monitoring, or administration costs. RESULTS: The base case used a commercial plan perspective, with average dosing of 51.5 mg/day for EPAG and 4.20 μg/kg/week for ROMI. The analysis found a cost difference per treated patient of $64,770 in favor of EPAG on an annual basis. Breakdown by unique costs for EPAG included drug-acquisition cost of $123,135 and monitoring cost of $705. Breakdown by unique costs for ROMI included drug-acquisition cost of $183,234, with wastage of $63,179 and administration cost of $5,377. Based on a hypothetical commercial plan with 1 million members and an estimated 11 patients with cITP receiving ROMI, potential annual savings for switching all patients from ROMI to EPAG is $712,473 or $0.06 per member per month. EPAG remained the less costly option for all plan types and assumptions. A sensitivity analysis found that the result was most sensitive to drug pricing and wastage inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lower drug-acquisition costs (including drug wastage) and administration costs, treatment of cITP with EPAG is associated with a lower net cost per patient than ROMI. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Proudman, Lucas, and Nellesen are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which received funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation to conduct this study. Patwardhan was employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation at the time of this study; Allen is an employee of Novartis. This research was presented as an e-poster at the AMCP 2020 Virtual, April 2020.

Purpose: Eltrombopag was evaluated as a second-line treatment for adult chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in the 2006 Phase III RAISE (Eltrombopag for Management of Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia) randomized, placebo-controlled trial. More than 80% of patients reached satisfactory platelet counts within 2 weeks. However, the economic value of eltrombopag as a second-line treatment for ITP remains to be formally assessed. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating ITP with a comparable thrombopoietin receptor agonist (eltrombopag vs romiplostim)., Methods: A Markov model was implemented over a lifetime time horizon to estimate the benefits and costs of each treatment. The model featured 3 health states based on current guidelines: (1) on treatment; (2) treatment failure/discontinuation; and (3) mortality. In line with therapeutic goals in ITP, model patients could experience 3 events: no bleeding, mild/moderate bleeding, or severe bleeding. Data on eltrombopag use were obtained from an open-label extension of previous Phase II/III trials, including RAISE. Romiplostim data were obtained from Phase III trials and an extension study. Lifetime overall survival was extrapolated by using treatment-specific mortality rates derived from severe bleeding and natural mortality rates. The costs of drugs, routine care, bleeding episodes, adverse events, and mortality were represented in the model., Findings: Eltrombopag-treated patients gained 17.58 life years and 14.68 quality-adjusted life years, whereas romiplostim-treated patients gained 17.52 life years and 14.67 quality-adjusted life years. The total lifetime cost of eltrombopag treatment was estimated at $1.58 million versus $2.13 million for romiplostim. Sensitivity analyses supported base case findings. Deterministic sensitivity analysis predicted the greatest sensitivity to the rates of severe bleeding, discontinuation, and natural mortality. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that eltrombopag would be an efficient use of resources at a $50,000 threshold in 52.8% of cases. In all probabilistic iterations, the total cost of eltrombopag treatment was lower than with romiplostim, primarily because of lower drug costs., Implications: Clinical data were applied in an economic analysis, and eltrombopag exhibited economic dominance compared with romiplostim, driven largely by the reduced costs of primary therapy. This model was limited by a lack of specific patient-level data and robust data on the duration of secondary therapy, as well as by the fact that utilization values are likely conservative estimates for routine care use., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study evaluated healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct costs among severe aplastic anemia (SAA) patients treated with eltrombopag (EPAG) using US claims data. Methods: This retrospective, real-world claims database study identified SAA patients aged ≥2 years treated with EPAG who initiated any SAA treatment between 1 July 2014 and 31 December 2017 (identification period) using the Truven MarketScan databases. A subset of 82 patients treated with EPAG during the identification period were evaluated for all-cause and SAA-related HCRU and direct costs as well as blood transfusion 1 month before EPAG initiation (baseline) and at Month 6 after EPAG initiation (follow-up period). Results: The average patient age was 50.8 ( SD  = 20.6) years old, predominantly female ( n  = 43, 52.4%), and had a mean CCI at baseline of 1.1 ( SD  = 1.7). Hospitalizations, and ER, office, and outpatient visits were significantly lower at Month 6 after EPAG initiation compared with 1 month before EPAG initiation ( p  < .05 for all four all-cause HCRU and SAA-related hospitalizations). An almost two-fold decrease in reliance on biweekly blood transfusions was observed: 1.0 at weeks 1-2 to 0.5 at Month 6 after EPAG initiation. Although prescription costs (mean [ SD ]) were significantly higher at Month 6 after EPAG initiation compared with 1 month before EPAG initiation (difference of $11,045 USD [ SD = $18,801]), these increases were offset by savings in direct costs. Overall, a mean reduction in total all-cause costs of $29,391 USD [ SD = $137,770] was reported at Month 6 after EPAG initiation due to substantial reductions in hospitalization ($40,060 USD [ SD = $123,198]) and outpatient visits ($2,043 USD [ SD = $25,264]). Conclusion: All-cause and SAA-related HCRU were reduced following EPAG treatment. Prescription costs were higher following treatment; however, these costs were generally offset by reductions in direct costs. These results provide real-world evidence around the role of EPAG in SAA treatment.

Aim: Eltrombopag and romiplostim are comparable second-line therapies in chronic immune thrombocytopenia. Treatment decisions are made in different contexts. A framework was created to outline decision pathways for physicians and payers. Materials & methods: The costs of drugs, administration, routine care, bleeding, other adverse events and mortality were included in the year-long calculation of total costs from a US private payer perspective. Treatment parameters and outcome data were obtained from relevant clinical trials. Results: The total cost per year, per patient of eltrombopag was US$51,000 versus US$76,000 for romiplostim. Drug costs and costs associated with bleeding-related events were the main drivers of cost difference. Conclusion: This framework facilitates decision-making in the management of chronic immune thrombocytopenia with eltrombopag and romiplostim.

Objectives: This analysis estimated the cost per response and the incremental cost per additional responder of romplostim, eltrombopag, and the "watch-and-rescue" (monitoring until rescue therapies are required) strategy in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP)., Study Design: The decision tree is designed to estimate the total cost per response for romiplostim, eltrombopag, and watch and rescue over a 24-week time horizon; cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of incremental cost per additional responder., Methods: Model inputs including response rates, bleeding-related episode (BRE) rates, and costs were estimated from registrational trial data, an independent Bayesian indirect comparison, database analyses, and peer-reviewed publications. Costs were applied to the proportions of patients with treatment response and nonresponse (based on platelet count). The total cost per response and the incremental cost per additional responder for each treatment were calculated. Sensitivity analyses and alternative analyses were performed., Results: With higher total costs and greater treatment efficacy, romiplostim and eltrombopag had a lower 24-week cost per response and a lower average number of BREs than watch and rescue. Eltrombopag was weakly dominated by romiplostim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of romiplostim versus watch and rescue was $46,000 per additional responder. The model results are most sensitive to response rates of romiplostim and watch and rescue and the BRE rate for splenectomized nonresponders. Alternative analyses results were similar to the base case., Conclusions: In adults with chronic ITP, romiplostim represents an efficient way to achieve response, with lower costs per response than eltrombopag; both romiplostim and eltrombopag had lower costs per response than watch and rescue.

Aims: Real-world evidence on the safety profile and costs associated with immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) treatment in adults is lacking. This study quantifies and compares adverse event (AE) crude rates and costs associated with ITP treatments as found in claims data., Materials and Methods: A retrospective claims-based analysis was conducted using IMS Pharmetrics Plus database. Included patients were ≥18 years old, with a diagnosis of ITP (2007-2012); an ITP-related claim for anti-D, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), rituximab, romiplostim, or eltrombopag; and 1-year continuous enrollment (3-years for rituximab) during follow-up. AEs and event costs were identified during active treatment, defined from the first claim of each drug to a pre-defined treatment gap or end of study period. Descriptive statistics were reported with Wilcoxon rank-sum significance tests., Results: A total of 2,518 patients were identified (mean age = 50.8 (±16.3 years); 55.8% male). Of all patients, 22.8% experienced any AE. Significantly fewer anti-D patients had any AE (13.8% vs IVIG: 21.1%, rituximab: 29.4%, romiplostim: 28.1%, eltrombopag: 22.4%). Nausea/vomiting and arthralgia/musculoskeletal pain were most common across treatments, and hemolytic events did not differ significantly across treatments. Most costly AEs were urinary tract infection, aseptic meningitis, and fever ($5000+/case); headache, nasal congestion, and hemolytic event were $4,000-5,000/case. Cost per AE did not differ by treatment., Limitations and Conclusions: Although lower than trial-based AE rates, claims for ITP treatment-related AEs are common, with higher numbers for rituximab and lower numbers for anti-D. This disparity suggests a possible differential cost burden overall that future analysis should explore.

Purpose: Deferiprone (DFP), deferasirox (DFX) and deferoxamine (DFO) are used in thalassaemia major (TM) patients to treat chronic iron overload. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DFP, compared with DFX and DFO monotherapy, from an Italian healthcare system perspective., Methods: A Markov model was used over a time horizon of 5 years. Italian-specific cost data were combined with Italian efficacy data. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each treatment, with cost-effectiveness expressed as cost per QALY., Results: In all scenarios modelled, DFP was the dominant treatment strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed that DFP dominated the other treatments with a >99% likelihood of being cost-effective against DFX and DFO at a willingness to pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY., Conclusions: DFP was the dominant and most cost-effective treatment for managing chronic iron overload in TM patients. Its use can result in substantial cost savings for the Italian healthcare system.

The aim of this study is to evaluate four drug regimens for treatment of scabies as regard their efficacy, acceptability and cost effectiveness. Two hundred cases with ordinary scabies were randomized into four groups. First group received ivermectin 200 μg/kg body weight single oral dose, repeated after one week. The second received benzyl benzoate 20% cream. The third received permethrin 2.5%-5% lotion, whereas the fourth group received 5-10% sulfur ointment. Topical treatments were applied for five consecutive nights. Patients were followed up for two weeks for cure rate and adverse effects. At the end of the study, permethrin provided a significant efficacy of 88% and acceptability in 100% of cases, but had higher cost to treat one case (20.25 LE). Ivermectin provided efficacy and acceptability rates of 84% and 96%, respectively, and had a cheaper cost (9.5 LE). Benzyl benzoate provided 80% for both rates and was the cheapest drug. Sulfur ointment provided the least rates, and it was the most expensive. Treatment choice will depend on the age, the general condition of cases, patient compliance to topical treatment and his ability to stick to its roles, and the economic condition of the patient.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag compared with romiplostim to be used in the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia in patients in England and Wales who are splenectomized or ineligible for splenectomy and are refractory to other treatments., Methods: A Markov cohort model in which patients were administered a sequence of treatments was used to predict long-term outcomes associated with each treatment. The model was informed by data from the eltrombopag clinical trial program and the available literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, and a lifetime time horizon was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Eltrombopag dominated romiplostim (i.e., eltrombopag was as effective as but less costly than romiplostim) in both splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients, assuming a class effect for the two treatments. Eltrombopag also dominated romiplostim in most deterministic sensitivity analyses with the exception of when indirect efficacy estimates were incorporated into the model. In this analysis, eltrombopag no longer dominated romiplostim but remained cost-effective versus romiplostim at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was a 99% and 92% chance of eltrombopag being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in splenectomized and nonsplenectomized patients, respectively., Conclusions: Results of this study demonstrate that eltrombopag is cost-effective when compared with romiplostim to be used in the treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia, representing good value for the UK National Health Service., (Copyright © 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pharmaceutical expenditure is rising by 16% per annum in China and is now 46% of total expenditure. Initiatives to moderate growth include drug pricing regulations and encouraging international non-proprietary name prescribing. However, there is no monitoring of physician prescribing quality and perverse incentives., Objectives: Assess changes in angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) utilization and expenditure as more generics become available; compare findings to Europe., Methodology: Observational retrospective study of ARB utilization and expenditure between 2006 and 2012 in the largest hospital in Chongqing district., Results: Variable and low use of generics versus originators with a maximum of 31% among single ARBs. Similar for fixed dose combinations. Prices typically reduced over time, greatest for generic telmisartan (-54%), mirroring price reductions in some European countries. However, no preferential increase in prescribing of lower cost generics. Accumulated savings of 33 million CNY for this large provider if they adopted European practices., Conclusion: Considerable opportunities to improve prescribing efficiency in China.

Objective: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related thrombocytopenia., Methods: A Markov model was constructed on the basis of the clinical trials ENABLE 1 and ENABLE 2. Three alternatives were considered: scenario 1; treatment with eltrombopag in both the enabling phase and during antiviral therapy, as in the ENABLE trial design; scenario 2; no eltrombopag treatment and no antiviral therapy; scenario 3; no eltrombopag treatment and subsequent administration of a reduced dose of peg-IFN., Results: Base case results demonstrate that scenario 1 is associated with a cost per QALY of €30,020.94 in comparison with scenario 2. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reaches a value of €32,752.44 per QALY when scenario 1 is compared with scenario 3., Conclusion: The use of eltrombopag in HCV patients with thrombocytopenia is cost-effective as it leads to a reduction in disease progression and thus a drop in the number of patients with advanced liver disease.

Background: Romiplostim, a thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPOra), is a second-line medical treatment option for adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Clinical trials have shown that romiplostim increases platelet counts, while reducing the risk of bleeding and, in turn, the need for costly rescue medications., Aims: The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of romiplostim in the treatment of adult ITP in Ireland, in comparison with eltrombopag and the medical standard of care (SoC)., Methods: A lifetime treatment-sequence cost-utility Markov model with embedded decision tree was developed from an Irish healthcare perspective to compare romiplostim with eltrombopag and SoC. The model was driven by platelet response (platelet count ≥50 × 10(9)/L), which determined effectiveness and progression along the treatment pathway, need for rescue therapy (e.g. intravenous immunoglobulin [IVIg] and steroids) and risk of bleeding. Probability of response, mean treatment duration, average time to initial response and utilities were derived from clinical trials and other published evidence. Treatment sequences and healthcare utilization practice were validated by Irish clinical experts. Costs were assessed in for 2011 and included drug acquisition costs and costs associated with monitoring patients and management of bleeding, as available from published Irish reimbursement lists and other relevant sources. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: Romiplostim treatment resulted in an average of 20.2 fewer administrations of rescue medication (IVIg or intravenous steroids) over a patient lifetime than eltrombopag, and 29.3 fewer rescue medication administrations than SoC. Romiplostim was dominant, with cost savings of 13,258 and 22,673 and gains of 0.76 and 1.17 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), compared with eltrombopag and SoC, respectively. Romiplostim remained cost effective throughout a variety of potential scenarios, including short-term TPOra treatment duration (1 year). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to variation in the cost of IVIg and use of romiplostim and IVIg. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that romiplostim was likely to be cost effective in over 90 % of cases compared with eltrombopag, and 96 % compared with SoC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 per QALY., Conclusions: Use of romiplostim in the ITP treatment pathway, compared with eltrombopag or SoC, is likely to be cost effective in Ireland. Romiplostim improves clinical outcomes by increasing platelet counts, reducing bleeding events and the use of IVIg and steroids, resulting in both cost savings and additional QALYs when compared with current treatment practices.

Background: Deferasirox (DFX) is a novel iron chelator that has been shown to have similar efficacy and safety compared with deferoxamine (DFO) in patients with β-thalassemia. The aim of this study was to determine the cost utility of DFX versus DFO in β-thalassemia major patients from Iran's society perspective., Study Design and Methods: A Markov model has been developed to determine lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients. To estimate the annual cost of each method, a cross-sectional study was conducted among two groups of patients who received DFO and DFX (n = 100 and n = 45, respectively). Also a time trade-off method was used to estimate the utility of two strategies. Finally a one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the strength of the results., Results: Our base-case analysis showed that estimated total lifetime costs per patient for DFX and DFO were 47,029 international dollar ($Int) and $Int143,522, respectively, while the estimated total discounted QALYs per person were 12.28 and 7.76, respectively. Calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that DSX is a dominant therapy and its estimated lifetime net monetary benefit was $Int273,528., Conclusion: We conclude that the use of DFX instead of DFO represents a cost-effective use of resources for treatment of iron overload in patients with β-thalassemia from Iran's society perspective., (© 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.)

During the last 30 years, in addition to the considerable progress made in control and prevention of thalassemias(3), there have also been major advances in their symptomatic management, at least in wealthier countries where appropriate facilities are available. Remarkable improvements in survival in the severe forms of thalassemia have followed the more judicious use of blood transfusion and, in particular, the ability to manage the iron accumulation resulting from transfusion with its severe and ultimately lethal effects on endocrine and cardiac function.

Purpose: To develop a tool to assist the decision-making for selection of Thrombopoyetin Receptor Agonists of adult patients with chronic immune primary thrombocytopenia (PTI)., Methods: Stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis with a 6-Health- States Markov model: stable, bleeding type 2, 3 or 4, post-type 4 bleeding and death. Each simulation analyzes a randomly generated scenario that describes patients characteristics, results measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs (in ?2011). Distributions were obtained from the Spanish data of the European health survey of 2009, the INE estimate of population for 2011 and the 6-months clinical studies for Eltrombopag and Romiplostim. Utility values were obtained from the literature and the costs from Spanish official rates lists. A set of 10.000 random scenarios were generated and the patients evolution of each scenario was simulated during a time horizon of five years (in 2-weeks cycles). National Health System Perspective was used and the annual discount rate was set at 3%., Results: Eltrombopag showed more effectiveness in 9.983 scenarios and there was no difference in 17. In 7.048 scenarios the alternative Eltombopag was dominant. It was cost-effective in another 19 (threshold 30,000 ??/AVAC)., Conclusions: Eltrombopag was the most cost-effective alternative in 70,67% of the simulated scenarios and its use could produce lower costs to the NHS., (Copyright © 2013 SEFH. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)

Background/purpose: The newly available iron chelator deferasirox (Exjade, Novartis) is expected to provide better long-term clinical outcomes and improved quality of life for patients with thalassemia than its predecessor, deferoxamine (Desferal, Novartis), because of its oral tablet form., Methods: We used the Markov model to estimate total additional lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with deferasirox versus deferoxamine in patients with transfusion-dependent thalassemia. Patients were assumed to be 2 years of age at initiation of chelation therapy. Clinical outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality from associated complications and life expectancy for the study population were estimated using the databases of the Bureau of National Health Insurance and the Health and Vital Statistics of Taiwan. Treatment costs were based on analyses of health insurance claims for patients with transfusion-dependent thalassemia. Utilities in terms of quality of life were also included in the model. The incremental cost-utility ratio of deferasirox versus deferoxamine was defined by the ratio of the difference in expected lifetime costs to the difference in QALYs. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the results to key assumptions., Results: Patients treated with deferasirox are expected to experience a lower incidence of associated complications and obtain 2.3 QALYs (discounted) at an additional lifetime cost of US$36,291 per patient (US$15,596 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that the unit drug cost of deferasirox had the greatest impact on the incremental cost-utility ratio. In addition, the incremental cost-utility ratio will increase by delaying the starting age (2 years of age in our study) of chelation therapy., Conclusion: Compared with infusional deferoxamine, oral deferasirox improved clinical outcomes and quality of life in terms of iron chelation in transfusion-dependent patients with thalassemia at a reasonable cost from a healthcare perspective., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

We enrolled 196 patients with hypertension who were already being treated with free-drug combinations of angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) and amlodipine. The free-drug combinations of ARB and amlodipine were replaced with the same dose of the fixed-dose combinations. The average home blood pressure (BP) in all patients receiving fixed-dose combinations was significantly lower than those receiving free-drug combinations (131 ± 10/75 ± 8 vs. 136 ± 11/77 ± 9 mm Hg, P < .01) accompanied with increasing drug adherence. After lowering BP by fixed-dose combinations, the costs for medications decreased by 31% over the 3 months.

Objective: This retrospective study evaluated iron chelating therapy (ICT) discontinuation and costs in Sickle cell disease (SCD) Medicaid recipients using healthcare claims from 2006-2010., Methods: Patients with ≥1 SCD diagnosis claim, ≥2 claims for deferoxamine (DFO) or deferosirox (DFX), and continuous enrollment ≥6 months prior to and 18 months following ICT initiation were included. Outcomes included treatment discontinuation, persistence (i.e., refill gaps ≥6 weeks), and total healthcare costs., Results: The average age among 404 SCD patients meeting study inclusion criteria was 18.7 (±11.0) years, with 45.8% being males and 66.7% being Blacks. Switches or combinations from DFO at index occurred in 124 (74.7%) patients compared to 10 (4.2%) with DFX at index. The Cox regression model that assessed long-term medication persistence indicated a 1.30-times higher likelihood of treatment discontinuation with DFO compared to DFX (95% CI: 1.06-1.61). Some 19.7% of patient remained on DFX relative to 4.8% on DFO. Both inpatient and total costs were similar in DFX and DFO treatment groups. Following 1 year of treatment, 37.4% remained on DFX compared to 15.7% on DFO. Meaningful differences in treatment discontinuation between the two treatment groups did not occur until 220+ days during the study period. At 18-months, treatment discontinuation rates were high in both groups; 95% for DFO and 80% for DFX., Conclusion: This study of SCD Medicaid patients found more therapeutic switches from DFO to DFX and a higher medication persistency rate with DFX than DFO. The conclusions are limited by the study's retrospective nature, which depends on multivariate statistics to account for patient heterogeneity and risk factors.

Background and Objectives: Regular blood transfusions for beta-thalassaemia patients lead to the accumulation of iron deposits in the body. In order to remove such deposits, iron chelation therapy is required. Subcutaneously administered deferoxamine has been the gold standard chelation therapy for over 40 years. Deferasirox is a newer chelation therapy that is taken orally once daily. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with deferoxamine and deferasirox in a cohort of transfusion-dependent beta-thalassaemia patients from a UK health service perspective., Methods: A 50-year annual cycle state transition model comprised three core health states: alive without cardiac complications, alive with cardiac complications, and dead, as well as representing other chronic complications of iron overload: diabetes, hypogonadism, hypoparathyroidism and hypothyroidism. The model was calibrated to identify sets of convergent input parameter values that predicted observed overall survival by mean lifetime compliance with chelation therapy. A pivotal non-inferiority trial informed the main estimates of the effectiveness of deferasirox, which were applied to the calibrated model. Using cost values for the year 2011, costs and utilities were summed over patients' lifetimes to estimate lifetime costs and QALY gains., Results: Mean lifetime treatment costs for patients receiving deferoxamine were £70,000 higher than deferasirox. Drug acquisition costs were £100,000 higher for deferasirox, but administration costs associated with deferoxamine were £170,000 higher. Higher compliance associated with oral deferasirox administration led to fewer complications. Combined with the quality-of-life effects of an oral mode of administration, an average gain of 4.85 QALYs for deferasirox was estimated. In the base case, deferasirox dominates deferoxamine, i.e., costs less and patients gain more QALYs. The key parameter is the proportion of deferoxamine patients using balloon infusers. Sensitivity analyses showed that even when the proportion of patients using balloon infusers is decreased from 79 to 25 %, the incremental cost per QALY gained remains well under £20,000., Conclusion: Higher drug acquisition costs for deferasirox are offset by the avoidance of infusion-related equipment costs. Combined with health benefits derived from an oral mode of administration and improved compliance, deferasirox has a high probability of being a cost-effective intervention compared with deferoxamine.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eltrombopag (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), as part of the their Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Aberdeen Technology Assessment Review (TAR) Group, commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG), critically reviewed and supplemented the submitted evidence. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG critically appraised the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the manufacturer, independently searched for relevant literature, conducted a critical appraisal of the submitted economic models and explored the impact of altering some of the key model assumptions as well as combining relevant sensitivity analyses. Three trials were used to inform the safety and efficacy aspects of this submission; however, one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RAISE study) was the principal source of evidence and was used to inform the economic model. Eltrombopag had greater odds of achieving the primary outcome of a platelet count between 50 × 10^⁹/L and 400 × 10^⁹/L during the 6-month treatment period than placebo (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 99% CI 3.6, 18.7). In the eltrombopag group, 50/83 (60%) of non-splenectomized patients and 18/49 (37%) of splenectomized patients achieved this outcome. The median duration of response was 10.9 weeks for eltrombopag (splenectomized 6 and non-splenectomized 13.4) compared with 0 for placebo. Eltrombopag patients required less rescue medication and had lower odds of bleeding events for both the splenectomized and the non-splenectomized patients. For a watch-and-rescue strategy of care, the comparator was placebo and the ERG found that substantial reductions in the cost of eltrombopag are needed before the incremental cost per QALY is less than £30,000. There was significant uncertainty, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reported varying from £33,561 to £103,500 per QALY (splenectomized) and £39,657 to £150,245 per QALY (non-splenectomized). All costs are presented in £, year 2008 values, as this was the costing year for the manufacturer's model. Other than bleeding, no adverse events were modelled. In relation to the long-term treatment model, the ERG questioned the robustness of the use of non-randomized non-comparative data. The base-case results restricting the time horizon to 2 years and prescribing eltrombopag as second-line treatment post-rituximab were found to be favourable towards eltrombopag. As rituximab is not a licensed treatment for ITP, the ERG were concerned that its inclusion may not be reflective of clinical practice. None of the treatment sequences resulted in an ICER approaching the recommended threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. Eltrombopag appears to be a safe treatment for ITP (although long-term follow-up studies are awaited) and has short-term efficacy. However, NICE found based on the evidence submitted and reviewed that there was no robust evidence on the long-term efficacy or cost effectiveness of eltrombopag and a lack of direct evidence for eltrombopag tested against other relevant comparators.

Introduction: The modulation of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) is an important pathway in managing high blood pressure, and its overexpression plays a key role in target end-organ damage. Telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) with unique pharmacologic properties, including the longest half-life among all ARBs; this leads to a significant and 24-h sustained reduction of blood pressure. Telmisartan has well-known antihypertensive properties, but there is also strong clinical evidence that it reduces left ventricular hypertrophy, arterial stiffness and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and confers renoprotection., Areas Covered: This paper reviews telmisartan's pharmacological properties in terms of efficacy for hypertension control and, importantly, focuses on its new therapeutic indications and their clinical implications., Expert Opinion: ONTARGET (ongoing telmisartan alone and in combination with ramipril global endpoint trial) demonstrated, that telmisartan confers cardiovascular protective effects similar to those of ramipril, but with a better tolerability. Moreover, recent investigations focused on the capability of telmisartan to modulate the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPAR-γ), an established target in the treatment of insulin resistance, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, whose activation is also correlated to anti-inflammatory and, finally, anti-atherosclerotic properties. Telmisartan shows peculiar features that go beyond blood pressure control. It presents promising and unique protective properties against target end-organ damage, potentially able to open a scenario of new therapeutic approaches to cardiovascular disease.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) places a significant burden on healthcare providers. High blood pressure (BP) is the single most prevalent risk factor for CVD worldwide and is responsible for more deaths than any other risk factor. 'Cardiovascular (CV) high-risk patients' make up the broad cross-section of patients in the middle of the risk spectrum for CVD progression that is referred to as the CV continuum and includes those with atherothrombotic disease, those with target organ damage associated with type 2 diabetes and those with multiple risk factors. Angiotensin II is involved in CVD progression at every stage of the CV continuum, making the renin-angiotensin system a rational target for pharmacologic intervention. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) offer a better tolerated alternative to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, with greater long-term adherence. The ARB telmisartan recently received an indication for CV prevention., Scope: A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify evidence on the use of telmisartan for preventing CV events., Findings: Telmisartan has a favourable safety and tolerability profile, and has demonstrated efficacious and long-lasting 24-hour BP reductions, whether as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine. In the largest CV prevention trial program undertaken with an ARB (the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial; ONTARGET), telmisartan 80 mg/day alone was as effective as ramipril in reducing the composite primary endpoint of CV mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospitalization for heart failure in CV high-risk patients. However, patients were significantly more likely to adhere to treatment with telmisartan than ramipril due to its better tolerability., Conclusion: To date, telmisartan is the only ARB indicated to reduce CV morbidity in a broad CV high-risk population.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag for the treatment of adults with chronic idiopathic (immune) thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), based on a review of the manufacturer's submission (MS) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. ITP is an autoimmune disorder by which antibodies are formed against platelets with annual incidence rates in the UK/USA ranging from 1.13 to 6.62 cases per 100,000 adults. Eltrombopag increases the production of platelets at a rate that outpaces their destruction by the immune system, and has a UK marketing authorisation both for the treatment of adult ITP in splenectomised patients who are refractory to other treatments and as a second-line treatment for adult non-splenectomised patients for whom surgery is contraindicated. Both splenectomised and non-splenectomised patient groups were considered in the analysis. Two economic models were presented, one for a watch-and-rescue treatment scenario and the second for the long-term treatment of patients with more severe ITP. The submission's evidence was sourced from the relatively high-quality RAISE [RAndomized placebo-controlled Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) Study with Eltrombopag] randomised controlled trial. The study indicated a statistically significant difference in favour of eltrombopag compared with placebo in the odds of achieving the primary outcome of a platelet count of between 50 and 400 × 109/l during the 6-month treatment period (odds ratio 8.2, 99% confidence interval 3.6 to 18.7). In the eltrombopag group, 50/83 (60%) non-splenectomised patients and 18/49 (37%) splenectomised patients achieved this outcome. Median duration of response for all patients was 10.9 weeks (splenectomised patients 6 weeks and non-splenectomised patients 13.4 weeks). Patients treated with eltrombopag required less rescue medication and had lower odds of bleeding events than placebo-treated subjects in both patient groups. In the watch-and-rescue economic model, the ERG found that substantial reductions in the cost of eltrombopag are needed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to fall below £ 30,000. Further analyses found that the ICER varied from £33,561 to £ 103,500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (splenectomised) and from £ 39,657 to £ 150,245 per QALY (non-splenectomised). Other than bleeding, no adverse events were modelled. In relation to the long-term treatment model, the ERG found that using non-randomised non-comparative data may result in biased estimates of unknown magnitude and direction. None of the treatment sequences resulted in an ICER approaching the recommended threshold of £ 30,000. The base-case results, using a 2-year time horizon and prescribing eltrombopag as second-line treatment post rituximab, were found to be favourable towards eltrombopag. In conclusion, based on the MS and additional ERG work, eltrombopag appears to be a safe treatment for ITP (although long-term follow-up studies are awaited) and has short-term efficacy. However, there is no robust evidence on long-term efficacy or cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag, and there is a lack of robust direct evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag compared with other relevant comparators. NICE did not recommend eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic ITP within its marketing authorisation for splenectomised or non-splenectomised patients.

Background and Objective: β-Thalassaemia is a major public health problem in Thailand. Use of appropriate iron-chelating agents could prevent thalassaemia-related complications, which are costly to the healthcare system. This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of deferoxamine (DFO), deferiprone (DFP) and deferasirox (DFX) in Thai transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia patients from the societal perspective., Methods: A Markov model was used to project the life-time costs and outcomes represented as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Data on the clinical efficacy and safety of all therapeutic options were obtained from a systematic review and clinical trials. Transition probabilities were derived from published studies. Costs were obtained from the Thai Drug and Medical Supply Information Center, Thai national reimbursement rate information and other Thai literature sources. A discount rate of 3% was used. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented as year 2009 values. A base-case analysis was performed for thalassaemia patients requiring regular blood transfusion therapy, while a separate analysis was performed for patients requiring low (i.e. symptom-dependent, less frequent) blood transfusion therapy. A series of sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed., Results: Compared with DFO, using DFP was dominant with lifetime cost savings of $US91 117. Comparing DFX with DFO, the incremental cost was $US522 863 and incremental QALY was 5.77 with an ICER of $US90 648 per QALY. When compared with DFP, the ICER of DFX was $US106 445 per QALY. A cost-effectiveness analysis curve showed the probability of DFX being cost effective was 0% when compared with either DFO or DFP, based on the cost-effectiveness cut-off value of $US2902 per QALY. When compared with DFP, DFX was cost effective only if the DFX cost was as low as $US1.68 per 250 mg tablet. The results of the analysis in patients requiring low blood transfusion therapy were not different from those of the base-case analysis., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that using DFP is cost saving when compared with conventional therapy, while using DFX is not cost effective compared with either DFO or DFP in Thai patients with transfusion-dependent β-thalassaemia. Policy-makers and clinicians may consider using such information in their decision-making process in Thailand.

Background: The recently published ONTARGET trial found that telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril in reducing CV death, MI, stroke, or heart failure in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. The cost implications of ramipril and telmisartan monotherapy use based on the ONTARGET study are reported here., Methods and Results: Only healthcare system costs were considered. Healthcare resource utilization was collected for each patient during the trial. The authors obtained country-specific unit costs to the different healthcare care resources consumed (i.e., hospitalizations events, procedures, non-study, and study drugs) for all enrolled patients. Purchasing power parities were used to convert country-specific costs into US dollars (US$ 2008). The total undiscounted costs of the study for the telmisartan group was $12,762 per patient and is higher than the ramipril group at $12,007 per patient, an un-discounted difference of $755 (95% confidence interval [CI], $218-$1292); The discounted costs for the telmisartan group was $11,722 compared with $11,019 for the ramipril group; a difference of $703 (95% CI, $209-$1197). The difference in costs is exclusively related to the acquisition cost of telmisartan over generic ramipril., Limitations: This analysis only considered direct healthcare system costs. Costs accrued outside the hospital were not collected. Combination therapy was excluded since it would likely be more expensive than ramipril alone, with no additional benefit and a risk of some harm., Conclusions: Based on these results, it is suggested that for the ONTARGET patients, the use of telmisartan instead of ramipril increases costs by 6.3%. These findings suggest that the choice to put patients on telmisartan should be justified based on the patient?s susceptibility to specific adverse events to minimize the cost implications.

Purpose: To understand how to appropriately recognize and manage iron overload with iron chelation therapy (ICT) in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), evaluation of the role of different agents available for management of iron overload, including efficacy, safety, and economic considerations for transfusion-dependent patients with MDS, is provided., Summary: Patients with MDS have a high incidence of anemia, which often requires treatment. Supportive care measures such as red blood cell transfusions and erythroid colony stimulating factors are mainstays of therapy. Use of long-term transfusion therapy has limitations in patients with MDS due to the risk of developing iron overload. Strategies to manage iron overload include phlebotomy and ICT with agents such as deferoxamine and deferasirox. Data evaluating pharmacologic therapy for treatment of iron overload in patients with MDS suggest timely intervention can mitigate the morbidity associated with this clinical syndrome., Conclusion: Development of practical management strategies to implement and optimize ICT using deferoxamine and deferasirox will be important to provide optimal care for transfusion-dependent patients with MDS.

The study aims to give a general idea about the new experience of chelating drugs among beta-thalassemia patients. It is a declarative survey. It was done in the therapy center of Morocco. Statistics were done in the Laboratory of Biological Essays in Kenitra. All economic and pharmacological data were given by Novartis. Sample size was 89. The only treatment available now in the therapy center is deferiprone. 78% of patients attending the service regularly take deferiprone as treatment while 13% of them combine deferiprone and deferoxamine. Most of the patients take treatments regularly. Chelators have reduced mortality. Patients taking deferoxamine experienced injection site reactions. Most of ADR due to deferiprone were digestive. In conclusion, the main problem with chelators in Morocco is lack of accessibility to drugs (except for some patients insured or payant).

Objective: The study evaluated the cost effectiveness of deferasirox (Exjade * ) compared to non-proprietary desferrioxamine (DFO) for the control of transfusional iron overload in lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. A UK National Health Service perspective was adopted., Methods: Recent clinical evidence has demonstrated the efficacy and safety of deferasirox in transfusion-dependent MDS patients with elevated serum ferritin levels. An economic model was used to extrapolate the clinical benefits of iron chelation therapy (ICT) in a cohort of lower risk MDS patients. Costs for drug acquisition, drug administration and monitoring, and quality of life (utility) outcomes associated with mode of drug administration were derived from a variety of sources. The incremental cost per QALY gained for deferasirox was estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% in line with UK standards., Results: The base-case cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus DFO was estimated to be £20,822 per QALY gained, the key driver being the additional quality of life benefits associated with a simpler mode of administration for deferasirox. A mean survival benefit for both forms of ICT of 4.5 years was estimated. The results were sensitive to drug dose, days of DFO administration, and patient weight., Conclusions: In the UK, a cost per QALY below £20,000-30,000 is considered cost effective. Hence, the results from this economic analysis suggest deferasirox is cost effective in lower risk, transfusion-dependent, MDS patients. Limitations with the analysis include a lack of comparative randomised controlled trial evidence, in particular to differentiate survival and clinical outcomes for deferasirox and DFO.

Objectives: This study aims to conduct an economic evaluation of oral deferasirox (DSX) compared with infusional deferoxamine (DFO) in patients with transfusional iron overload., Methods: Depending on the methods for measuring time-cost and convenience associated with the mode of administration, either cost-utility analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. The difference in compliance rate between DSX and DFO was applied., Results: Although the drug cost of DSX was US$124,070 higher than that of DFO (US$96,039 vs. US$220,199), all other costs were lower in patients with DSX than in patients with DFO. In the cost-utility analysis, DSX resulted in US$3197 savings with a gain of 2.63 quality-adjusted life-years per patient. The result of the cost-effectiveness analysis also showed that DSX dominated DFO., Conclusions: With a considerable improvement in convenience and injection time rather than efficacy, DSX is considered as a dominant therapy for patients with iron overload.

Deferasirox is a once-daily, orally administered, tridentate iron chelator that is indicated in the treatment of iron overload resulting from regular packed red blood cell transfusions in patients with transfusion-dependent anemias, such as beta-thalassemia, sickle cell disease, myelodysplastic syndrome and other rare anemias. Randomized, controlled trials have established its efficacy to reduce liver iron concentration and serum ferritin levels to be comparable to the historic standard iron chelator, deferoxamine, which is administered as a parenteral infusion. However, deferasirox may be more effective than deferoxamine in actual clinical practice owing to the improvement in quality of life and, hence, increased compliance associated with the oral route of administration. The higher acquisition cost of deferasirox may be counterbalanced by savings in the administration cost, as well as the treatment of complications of iron overload that result from noncompliance with therapy attributable to the parenteral mode of administration. Deferasirox may also have potential as an important supplement and even an alternative to phlebotomies in nontransfusional, genetic iron overload disorders, such as hereditary hemochromatosis.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions in patients with chronic anaemia such as beta-thalassaemia major (beta-TM) and sickle cell disease (SCD)., Data Sources: Electronic databases were searched up to March 2007., Review Methods: Methods followed accepted procedures for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and economic evaluations., Results: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a study population of 1480 (ranging from 13 to 586) met the inclusion criteria. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between trials in terms of trial design and outcome reporting. As such it was only possible to meta-analyse serum ferritin data from six trials making comparisons between deferiprone and DFO and combination therapy and DFO. Only one of the results was statistically significant, favouring combination therapy over DFO alone for serum ferritin at 12 months. How this translates into iron loading in organs such as the heart is unclear, nor was it possible to determine the long-term benefits of chelation therapy. Eight full economic evaluations (one full paper; seven abstracts) were included in the review. The results were generally consistent and appear to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of deferasirox compared with DFO for the treatment of iron overload in a number of different patient populations and study locations. However, a number of assumptions and, in the case of the long-term studies, extrapolation from short-term RCT data were required, which render the results highly speculative at best. Because of the paucity of long-term data we developed a simple, short-term (1 year) model to assess the costs and benefits of deferasirox, deferiprone and DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD from an NHS perspective. A number of assumptions were required to generate results and, as such, they should be interpreted as indicative rather than factual. Our model suggests that deferasirox may be a cost-effective strategy compared with DFO, at a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) below 30,000 pounds per year, for patients with beta-TM and SCD. However, this is highly dependent upon the age of the patient and the use and benefits of balloon infusers to administer DFO. Deferasirox compared with deferiprone is likely to be cost-effective only for young children. Furthermore, if deferiprone is proven to offer the same health benefits as deferasirox, the latter will not be cost-effective for any patient compared with deferiprone., Conclusions: In the short term there is little clinical difference between any of the three chelators in terms of removing iron from the blood and liver. Deferasirox may be cost-effective compared with DFO in patients with beta-TM and SCD, but it is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with deferiprone. Elucidating the long-term benefits of chelation therapy, including issues of adverse events and adherence, should be the primary focus for future research. Future work should aim for consistency and transparency in reporting study design and results to aid decision-making when making comparisons across trials.

Objective: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-utility of deferasirox (Exjade) compared to standard therapy using desferrioxamine (Desferal) for the control of iron overload in patients receiving frequent blood transfusions. The perspective adopted was that of the National Health Service in the UK., Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials have shown deferasirox in the recommended doses of 20-30 mg/kg per day to have similar efficacy to desferrioxamine at equivalent doses in the control of chronic iron overload. The main difference between them is in the mode of administration. Desferrioxamine is administered parenterally as a slow subcutaneous infusion typically infused 8-12 hours a day for 5-7 days a week. In comparison, deferasirox provides 24 hour chelation via a once daily oral tablet dispersed in water or juice. An excel based economic model was developed to evaluate the annual healthcare costs and quality of life, or utility, benefits associated with differences in mode of administration, using beta-thalassaemia as the reference case. A community utility study using time trade-off methods was performed to determine utility outcomes associated with iron chelation therapy (ICT) mode of administration., Results: In the reference case (patient mean weight 42 kg), deferasirox 'dominated' desferrioxamine, i.e. resulted in lower net costs and higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Drug dose and cost is patient weight related. Incremental cost per QALY gained was pound 7775 for patients with a mean weight of 62 kg., Conclusions: The cost-utility analysis did not take drug compliance into account. However, Deferasirox is cost-effective compared to standard iron chelation therapy with desferrioxamine, due to the cost and quality of life benefits derived from a simpler and more convenient oral mode of administration.

New developments in the area of iron and other metal metabolism and toxicity and the effects and uses of chelators have been presented at the 16th International Conference on Chelation (ICOC), Limassol, Cyprus in October 2006. Marketing practices by pharmaceutical companies, contradictory policies by regulatory authorities and ineffective policies by health authorities deprive thousands of thalassemia and other transfused patients of life saving iron chelating drugs and of efficacious chelation treatments. Thousands of patients were using deferasirox (DFRA) worldwide a few months after the European Union (EU) authorities, and about 1 year after the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), proceeded to its accelerated approval with no sufficient evidence that the drug was efficacious, especially for clearing excess cardiac iron, and also safe. Cases of fatal, acute, irreversible renal and liver failure, fatal agranulocytosis and other toxicities have recently been reported with DFRA. The FDA has not yet approved deferiprone (L1) depriving thousands of patients of potentially life saving treatment. The high cost of DFRA at 60 euros/g, L1 at 5.5 euros/g and deferoxamine (DFO) at 8.3 euros/g, diminishes the prospects of universal chelation therapy, especially for patients in developing countries. The safety and efficacy record of L1, DFO, and their combination in particular, appear to provide universal solutions in the treatment of transfusional iron overload, and also in reducing mortality because of their ability to clear rapidly and effectively excess cardiac iron.

A large number of complications in thalassemia major are due mainly to iron overload. Deferoxamine in iron-overloaded patients has established that chelation therapy, when given at an adequate dose, reduces iron-related complications. Parenteral administration and the daily nuisance of an infusion pump hinder the optimal compliance. Deferiprone is moderately effective oral iron chelator. Arthralgia and cytopenias constitute the main side effects. Deferasirox is a new orally effective iron chelator which has been shown to be non-inferior to deferoxamine in clinical trials. Further clinical trials especially in Indian children will tell if it stands the test of time.

Deferasirox (Exjade) is an oral, once-daily iron chelator widely approved for the treatment of transfusional chronic iron overload. In the EU, deferasirox is indicated in patients with beta-thalassaemia major aged > or =6 years and, in the US, in all transfusional chronic iron overload patients aged > or =2 years. Deferasirox is highly selective for iron as Fe3+. In approximately 1-year clinical trials of patients with transfusional chronic iron overload associated with beta-thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, myelodysplastic syndrome or other rare chronic anaemias, deferasirox 20 or 30 mg/kg/day had a beneficial effect on liver iron concentrations (LIC) and serum ferritin levels; tolerability issues were clinically manageable with regular patient monitoring. Although longer-term efficacy and tolerability data are required, in particular examining the prevention of iron overload-related complications and the effect of deferasirox on renal function, deferasirox is an easily administered iron chelator and is a valuable option in the management of transfusional chronic iron overload.

Background: Deferasirox is a recently approved once-daily oral iron chelator that has been shown to reduce liver iron concentrations and serum ferritin levels to a similar extent as infusional deferoxamine., Objective: To determine the cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus deferoxamine in patients with beta-thalassaemia major from a US healthcare system perspective., Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate the total additional lifetime costs and QALYs gained with deferasirox versus deferoxamine in patients with beta-thalassaemia major and chronic iron overload from blood transfusions. Patients were assumed to be 3 years of age at initiation of chelation therapy and to receive prescribed dosages of deferasirox and deferoxamine that have been shown to be similarly effective in such patients. Compliance with chelation therapy and probabilities of iron overload-related cardiac disease and death by degree of compliance were estimated using data from published studies. Costs ($US, year 2006 values) of deferoxamine administration and iron overload-related cardiac disease were based on analyses of health insurance claims of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients. Utilities were based on a study of patient preferences for oral versus infusional chelation therapy, as well as published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were employed to examine the robustness of the results to key assumptions., Results: Deferasirox resulted in a gain of 4.5 QALYs per patient at an additional expected lifetime cost of $US126,018 per patient; the cost per QALY gained was $US28,255. The cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus deferoxamine was sensitive to the estimated costs of deferoxamine administration and the quality-of-life benefit associated with oral versus infusional therapy. Cost effectiveness was also relatively sensitive to the equivalent daily dose of deferasirox, and the unit costs of deferasirox and deferoxamine, and was more favourable in younger patients., Conclusion: Results of this analysis of the cost effectiveness of oral deferasirox versus infusional deferoxamine suggest that deferasirox is a cost effective iron chelator from a US healthcare perspective.

In the US, 6% sulfur in petrolatum has been the most frequently administered treatment for infantile scabies. It appears to be safe but there is no literature containing a large series of patients on which to base that determination. In the UK, benzyl benzoate is the approved product. Benzyl benzoate is rarely used in the US at the present time. 5% Permethrin is an excellent substitute and has many advantages. It appears to be quite safe in infants, although it is more expensive than other products. It remains present on the skin for several days, therefore protecting against reinfestation. Ivermectin is a systemic drug which is assumed to be safe in infants, although it requires repeated doses and does not protect against reinfestation. In the opinion of the author, 5% permethrin is the best treatment for scabies in infants and young children.

Costs of providing a particular medical service can be measured, but it is more difficult to assess whether the service provides good value for the money spent. Rigorous trials have demonstrated the health benefits connected with interventions for treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and in-depth analyses of the costs associated with many of those interventions have been performed. Careful use of terminology clearly differentiating among cost-minimization (relative costs of proved equivalent therapeutics), cost-effectiveness (lives saved or years of life added), and cost-benefit (total net effect in monetary terms) analyses is warranted. Although trials commonly assess clinical effectiveness as reductions in mortality or CVD-specific outcomes, improvement in quality of life may be equally important and is expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Comparisons between therapies can be assessed as a cost-effectiveness ratio. Extensive cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted on many important cardiovascular therapies: (1) beta-blockers and diuretics for multiple CVD outcomes, mortality, and prevention of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI); (2) statins for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD; (3) enalapril for prevention and treatment of congestive heart failure; (4) tissue plasminogen activator treatment of acute MI; (5) coronary artery bypass graft for left main, single-, and 2-vessel coronary artery disease, or severe angina; (6) physician counseling for smoking; and (7) radiofrequency ablation therapy for Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Therapies considered economically attractive include (1) secondary prevention with statins in hyperlipidemia, (2) smoking cessation programs, (3) primary prevention in treatment of high blood pressure with diuretics and beta-blockers, (4) primary prevention with regular exercise programs, (5) secondary prevention with cardiac rehabilitation, and (6) postinfarction treatment with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. A recent cost-minimization analysis has been performed showing aspirin to be a "best buy" therapy for secondary prevention of CVD. The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE-I Intolerant Patients with Cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) program provide potential opportunities for both cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Objective: To compare single dose oral ivermectin with topical benzyl benzoate for the treatment of paediatric scabies., Methods: An observer-blinded randomized controlled trial was undertaken at Vila Central Hospital, Vanuatu. One hundred and ten children aged from 6 months to 14 years were randomized to receive either ivermectin 200 micro g/kg orally or 10% benzyl benzoate topically. Follow up was at 3 weeks post-treatment. Primary outcome measures were the number of scabies lesions, the itch visual analogue score and nocturnal itch. Secondary outcome measures were the skin's reaction to treatment, the passage of worms in stool and other side effects., Results: Eighty patients completed the study protocol. There was no significant difference between the two treatments; both produced a significant decrease in the number of scabies lesions seen at follow up. Ivermectin cured 24 out of 43 patients (56%), and benzyl benzoate 19 out of 37 patients (51%) at 3 weeks post-treatment. No serious side effects were noted with either treatment, but benzyl benzoate was more likely to produce local skin reactions (P = 0.004, OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.6-25.0), Conclusions: Ivermectin is cheap and effective in the treatment of paediatric scabies. Ivermectin has minimal observed toxicity and has the additional beneficial effects of antiparasitic action in onchocerciasis, filariasis and strongyloidiasis. Ivermectin is better than benzyl benzoate for the treatment of paediatric scabies in developing countries.