Search

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit–risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk–benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA). Post-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria—PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles. UPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values

ObjectiveAssess number needed to treat (NNT) and costs required to achieve improvements in symptoms and functional activities with targeted therapies for myasthenia gravis (MG).BackgroundNNT and cost per improved efficacy can help inform comparative clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness across MG treatments.Design/MethodsRelative to conventional therapy (CT), NNTs and annual costs for achieving one point improvement in Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score (QMG), one additional patient with minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in QMG (i.e., = 3 points improvement), and one additional patient achieving minimal symptom expression (MSE; Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living score of 0 or 1) were estimated for efgartigimod (EFG), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and eculizumab (ECU). All treatments were used in conjunction with CT. Costs per improved outcome (CPR) were compared between EFG, IVIg, and ECU. Efficacy evaluated at week 4 of respective phase 3 randomized trials (ADAPT [NCT03669588],NCT02473952, REGAIN [NCT01997229]. Annual drug acquisition and administration costs (2021 USD) were considered.ResultsCompared with CT, mean NNTs to achieve one point improvement and MCID in QMG were 0.19 and 2.03 for EFG, 0.52 and 7.14 for IVIg, and 0.56 and 6.25 for ECU. NNTs to achieve an additional patient with MSE was 3.46 for EFG and 8.13 for ECU. Compared to EFG, the mean annual CPR to achieve one point improvement and MCID in QMG were higher for IVIg (Difference [95% confidence interval] = $36,130 [$14,024, $58,237] per point improvement in QMG; $661,561 [$0, $1,546,275] per one patient with MCID in QMG) and ECU ($340,659 [$158,038, $523,280]; $3,838,718 [$1,470,740, $6,206,695]). Cost to achieve one additional patient with MSE was $4,761,649 [$2,859,671, $6,663,626] higher for ECU compared with EFG.ConclusionsEvidence indicates more favorable treatment benefit and economic value for EFG with fewer NNT and lower cost required to achieve improved outcomes compared to other treatments.

We compared viral suppression rates between patients who continued tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/lamivudine (3TC) vs switched to zidovudine (ZDV)/3TC in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor after failure of first-line efavirenz/TDF/3TC. We found higher rates of viral suppression with continued TDF/3TC compared with switching to ZDV/3TC.

Introduction Patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) who are eligible for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) often lack an HLA-matched related donor (MRD) and rely on unrelated donors for a matched or mismatched unrelated donor (MUD or MMUD) or on umbilical cord blood (UCB). It is well known that racial minorities are underrepresented in donor registries. Objective Omidubicel, an advanced cell therapy for allo-HCT, demonstrated superior hematopoietic recovery and clinical outcomes compared with standard UCB (NCT02730299). We hypothesized the impact of omidubicel access on racial and ethnic health disparities in a projection model. Methods A model was developed to project allo-HCT access and clinical outcomes in a hypothetical population of 10,000 allo-HCT-eligible US patients with HM lacking an HLA-MRD. Outcomes associated with omidubicel, MUD, MMUD, haploidentical or UCB HCT, or no transplant were assessed by race/ethnic group. Model inputs, including clinical outcomes for each HCT type, were drawn from clinical trials, public CIBMTR and US Department of Health and Human Services data, and published studies. Increasing omidubicel use was modeled, with proportional reductions in other allo-HCT types or no transplant. Results In a modeled population of 10,000 patients, 5,956 (60%) received allo-HCT utilizing current donor sources (MUD, MMUD, haploidentical, UCB) with no omidubicel (status quo). While 80% of white patients underwent allo-HCT, only 40% of Hispanic, 32% of Asian, and 22% of Black patients underwent allo-HCT. Mean time from selecting graft to HCT was 11.5 weeks. Including those not transplanted, 1-year OS was 62% overall, ranging from 56% (Black) to 65% (White). Modeled increases in omidubicel use in eligible patients were associated with higher proportions of patients undergoing allo-HCT, decreased time to HCT, and increased 1-year OS. Improvements were greatest among racial minorities. Assuming 20% omidubicel use, the proportion of patients receiving allo-HCT increased by 71% in Black, 43% in Asian, 30% in Hispanic, and 5% in White patients. Modeled time to allo-HCT improved as well. Discussion Access to omidubicel is projected to decrease time to allo-HCT, improve outcomes overall, with greatest improvements among racial and ethnic groups underserved by the status quo, thus helping to reduce racial disparities and improving health equity in allo-HCT.