Cyclosporin microemulsion (Neoral). A pharmacoeconomic review of its use compared with standard cyclosporin in renal and hepatic transplantation.

Cyclosporin microemulsion (Neoral) is a self-emulsifying preconcentrate of cyclosporin which is more rapidly and consistently absorbed than the original oil-based formulation of cyclosporin (standard formulation; Sandimmun, Sandimmune). This superior pharmacokinetic profile suggests that cyclosporin microemulsion may be associated with improved therapeutic and economic outcomes compared with the standard formulation. Clinical studies comparing the 2 formulations of cyclosporin (using the recommended 1:1 dosage conversion factor) in de novo or stable renal and de novo liver transplant patients have demonstrated that cyclosporin microemulsion is as efficacious as the standard formulation. Rates of acute and chronic graft rejection are generally unaffected by the formulation of cyclosporin, although a trend toward fewer rejection episodes in cyclosporin microemulsion recipients was noted in several randomised studies (reaching statistical significance in 4 studies). Most transplant recipients experience adverse events during cyclosporin therapy, and with higher and more reliable maximum blood concentrations achieved by cyclosporin microemulsion, there is a potential risk of more drug-related adverse events. However, most studies have suggested that the frequency of drug-related adverse events (including nephrotoxicity) is not affected by the formulation of cyclosporin. Analyses of healthcare resource utilisation and associated costs in renal and liver transplant patients in Canadian and European studies have suggested that the cost of using cyclosporin microemulsion may be lower than the cost of using the standard formulation. Lower resource consumption among cyclosporin microemulsion recipients in several studies led to slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower overall healthcare costs in this group. The cost of cyclosporin itself was not included in most of these analyses; however, because the 2 formulations of cyclosporin are used in similar dosages and have similar acquisition costs, this was probably not an important factor in determining relative costs. A single cost analysis comparing cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus suggested that the 2 drugs were associated with similar overall costs. The available economic data on the use of cyclosporin microemulsion are subject to a number of important limitations. In particular, only partial results and study methodology have been reported for most analyses. Several studies were based on small patient groups (< 25) and short periods of follow-up (3 months), although some economic studies included larger patient groups receiving treatment for up to 1 year. Moreover, all of the analyses published to date were 'protocol driven' studies, and hence may not reflect resource use in usual clinical practice. CONCLUSION: In de novo and stable renal and de novo liver transplant recipients, cyclosporin microemulsion is as effective and well tolerated as the standard formulation of cyclosporin. Economic analyses comparing the 2 formulations indicate a consistent, although small and not statistically significant, reduction in overall healthcare costs associated with use of cyclosporin microemulsion.     

Spotlight on the Pharmacoeconomics of Candesartan Cilexetil in Chronic Heart Failure and Hypertension

The addition of candesartan cilexetil (Atacand®, Amias®, Biopress®, Kenzen®, Ratacand®) to standard therapy for chronic heart failure (CHF) provided important clinical benefits at little or no additional cost in France, Germany, and the UK, according to a detailed economic analysis focusing on major cardiovascular events and prospectively collected resource-use data from the CHARM-Added and CHARM-Alternative trials in patients with CHF and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. Results of a corresponding cost-effectiveness analysis showed that candesartan cilexetil was either dominant over placebo or was associated with small incremental costs per life-year gained, depending on the country and whether individual trial or pooled data were used. Preliminary data from a US cost-effectiveness analysis based on CHARM data also showed favorable results for candesartan cilexetil.Two cost-effectiveness analyses of candesartan cilexetil in hypertension have been published, both conducted in Sweden. Data from the SCOPE trial in elderly patients with hypertension, which showed a significant reduction in nonfatal stroke with candesartan cilexetil-based therapy versus non-candesartan cilexetil-based treatment, were incorporated into a Markov model and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12 824 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated (2001 value). Another modelled cost-effectiveness analysis of candesartan cilexetil was based on the ALPINE trial, in which the incidence of new-onset diabetes was significantly lower in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension who were randomized to candesartan cilexetil (with or without felodipine) than among those who received hydrochlorothiazide (with or without atenolol). Although candesartan cilexetil was dominant over hydrochlorothiazide, the ALPINE cost-effectiveness analysis relied on a small number of clinical events and did not evaluate the incremental cost of candesartan cilexetil per life-year or QALY gained.In conclusion, despite some inherent limitations, economic analyses incorporating CHARM data and conducted primarily in Europe have shown that candesartan cilexetil appears to be cost effective when added to standard CHF treatment in patients with CHF and compromized LV systolic function. The use of candesartan cilexetil as part of antihypertensive therapy in elderly patients with elevated blood pressure was also deemed to be cost effective in a Swedish analysis, primarily resulting from a reduced risk of nonfatal stroke (as shown in the SCOPE study); however, the generalizability of results to other contexts has not been established. Cost-effectiveness analyses comparing candesartan cilexetil with ACE inhibitors or other angiotensin receptor blockers in CHF or hypertension are lacking, and results reported for candesartan cilexetil in a Swedish economic analysis of ALPINE data focusing on outcomes for diabetes require confirmation and extension.     

Ondansetron: a pharmacoeconomic and quality-of-life evaluation of its antiemetic activity in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy

Ondansetron is more effective than high-dose metoclopramide in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and, unlike metoclopramide, is rarely associated with extrapyramidal effects. Pharmacoeconomic analyses have demonstrated that, in specified clinical settings, ondansetron (8mg 4-hourly for 3 doses or 8mg followed by 1 mg/h for 24 hours) is equally cost-effective as high-dose metoclopramide (3 mg/kg followed by 0.5 mg/kg/h for 8 hours) in the prophylaxis of emesis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, at an acquisition cost 4- or 5-fold higher than that of the metoclopramide regimen. Furthermore, the combination of dexamethasone plus ondansetron has been shown to be more effective than ondansetron monotherapy in controlling emesis. In patients receiving high-dose ( greater than 50 mg/m2) cisplatin-based chemotherapy, antiemetic therapy with ondansetron (8mg intravenously as a single dose) plus dexamethasone (16mg total intravenous dose) was shown to be more cost-effective than the combination of high-dose metoclopramide (11 mg/kg total intravenous dose), dexamethasone (8mg intravenously as a single dose) plus lorazepam (1 to 1.5mg intravenously as a single dose). In a limited number of studies, quality-of-life scores, as assessed using the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist or the Functional Living Index--Emesis instrument, were significantly higher with ondansetron than with other antiemetic agents, including metoclopramide. Together, these results suggest that ondansetron, as an alternative to antiemetic regimens including high-dose metoclopramide, is appropriate cost-effective therapy for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ondansetron is effective in controlling acute emesis associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and its use in this clinical setting may best be reserved for patients who have not responded well to previous antiemetic therapy with more traditional agents. However, poorly controlled emesis can lead to anticipatory nausea and vomiting in subsequent courses of chemotherapy, thus, consideration should also be given to the use of ondansetron in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, although further pharmacoeconomic investigations are required to clarify its use in this clinical setting.     

Bosutinib: A Review of Its Use in Patients with Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia

Bosutinib (Bosulif^®) is an orally administered small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of BCR–ABL and SRC family kinases. It is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with chronic-, accelerated-, or blast-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy (imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib) [USA] or for a small subpopulation of these patients for whom imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib are not considered appropriate treatment options (EU). In a multinational pivotal trial (n = 547), bosutinib treatment resulted in a major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at 24 weeks in one-third of all treated patients with imatinib-resistant chronic-phase CML who had no previous exposure to any TKIs other than imatinib (primary endpoint), with similar results observed in chronic-phase CML patients who were intolerant of imatinib and naïve to all other TKIs. MCyRs were also seen in more than one–quarter of evaluable patients with chronic-phase CML previously treated with multiple TKIs. Most of the patients with chronic-phase CML achieved a complete hematologic response with bosutinib and some patients with advanced phases of CML achieved an overall hematologic response. Responses were seen irrespective of the type of BCR-ABL mutation at baseline, except T315I. Bosutinib had a manageable tolerability profile in the pivotal trial, with ≤21 % of patients with chronic-phase CML discontinuing the treatment because of adverse events. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event but was generally manageable, with only few patients discontinuing the treatment because of diarrhea. Therefore, bosutinib is a useful TKI option for patients with Ph+ CML in second-line or greater settings.     

Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Moderate to Severe Bacterial Infections

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity against most Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria. Piperacillin/tazobactam is effective and well tolerated in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), intra-abdominal infections, skin and soft tissue infections, and febrile neutropenia. In comparative clinical trials against various other antibacterial regimens, piperacillin/tazobactam has shown higher clinical success rates, particularly in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections and febrile neutropenia.Cost analyses of piperacillin/tazobactam have been variable, in part, because of differences in specific costs included. Three US cost analyses found that piperacillin/tazobactam had lower total medical costs than clindamycin plus gentamicin or imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections, and ticarcillin/clavulanic acid in community-acquired pneumonia. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin had lower total costs than ceftazidime plus amikacin in another cost analysis of patients with febrile neutropenic episodes modeled in nine European countries. However, piperacillin/tazobactam plus tobramycin was more costly than ceftazidime plus tobramycin in hospital-acquired pneumonia in a US cost analysis.In cost-effectiveness analyses, all studies of intra-abdominal infections, pneumonia and febrile neutropenic episodes consistently reported lower costs per unit of effectiveness versus comparators. Piperacillin/tazobactam was dominant (greater efficacy and lower costs) versus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections and ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin or meropenem in pneumonia. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin was dominant over ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes. In a cost-effectiveness analysis of skin and soft tissue infection, piperacillin/tazobactam had lower costs per successfully treated patient than ceftriaxone or cefotaxime, but a slightly higher cost-effectiveness ratio than amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. All cost-effectiveness analyses were based on decision-analytical models. Conclusions: Piperacillin/tazobactam is likely to reduce overall treatment costs of moderate to severe bacterial infections by increasing initial treatment success, thereby reducing the length of hospital stay and the use of additional antibacterials. Piperacillin/tazobactam has shown clinical and economic advantages over standard antibacterial regimens in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections, LRTIs, febrile episodes in patients with neutropenia, and skin and soft tissue infections, although more complete published data are needed to confirm these results. Present data regarding clinical efficacy, bacterial resistance and costs would support the use of piperacillin/tazobactam as an empirical first-line option in moderate to severe bacterial infections.     

Alfuzosin: a review of the therapeutic use of the prolonged-release formulation given once daily in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Alfuzosin, a quinazoline derivative, is a selective and competitive alpha(1)-adrenoceptor antagonist. It distributes preferentially in the prostate, compared with plasma, and decreases the sympathetically controlled tone of prostatic smooth muscle. As a result lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are improved. The once-daily formulation of alfuzosin contains inactive barrier layers which have been added to the planar surfaces of compressed tablets. Drug release is sustained over 20 hours with a near constant dissolution rate between 2 and 12 hours. Mean values for area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 24 hours (AUC(24)) were similar after administration of prolonged-release alfuzosin 10mg once daily and immediate-release alfuzosin 2.5mg three times daily. Likewise, similar AUC(24) values were reported when prolonged-release alfuzosin 10mg once daily and sustained-release alfuzosin 5mg twice daily were compared. These data suggest that these alfuzosin regimens provide similar average systemic exposure. Data from short- (3 months) and long-term (up to 12 months) clinical trials show that the prolonged-release formulation of alfuzosin controls the symptoms associated with BPH as effectively as immediate-release alfuzosin 2.5mg three times daily and clinical improvement is maintained for up to 1 year. Improvements in International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate and quality-of-life index were improved to a similar extent in patients treated with immediate- or prolonged-release alfuzosin and improvements were statistically significant compared with placebo. Prolonged-release alfuzosin 10mg is well tolerated and the overall incidence of adverse events is similar to that seen with placebo. The once-daily formulation of alfuzosin 10mg caused fewer vasodilatory adverse events than immediate-release alfuzosin 2.5mg three times daily and caused only slight decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure which were not clinically significant and did not differ significantly from those with placebo. No dosage titration is required. The incidence of ejaculatory disorders was <1%. CONCLUSION: Prolonged-release alfuzosin 10mg once daily controls symptoms associated with BPH throughout a 24-hour dosage interval as effectively as immediate-release alfuzosin 2.5mg three times daily but with fewer vasodilatory adverse events. A nonblind extension study showed that clinical benefits were maintained for up to 1 year and the once-daily 10mg formulation continued to be well tolerated, particularly in terms of cardiovascular effects and sexual function. Thus, for the medical management of men with BPH, prolonged-release alfuzosin 10mg is an effective, well tolerated and convenient treatment option.     

Sertraline: a review of its use in the management of major depressive disorder in elderly patients

Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with well established antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. Results from several well designed trials show that sertraline (50 to 200 mg/day) is effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder in elderly patients (> or =60 years of age). Primary endpoints in most studies included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Sertraline was significantly more effective than placebo, and was as effective as fluoxetine, nortriptyline and imipramine in elderly patients. During one trial, amitriptyline was significantly more effective than sertraline [mean reduction from baseline on one of six primary outcomes (HDRS)], although no quantitative data were provided. Subgroup analysis of data from a randomised, double-blind trial in elderly patients with major depressive disorder suggests that vascular morbidity, diabetes mellitus or arthritis does not affect the antidepressant effect of sertraline. Secondary endpoints from these clinical trials suggest that sertraline has significant benefits over nortriptyline in terms of quality of life. In addition, significant differences favouring sertraline in comparison with nortriptyline and fluoxetine have been recorded for a number of cognitive functioning parameters. Sertraline is generally well tolerated in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, and lacks the marked anticholinergic effects that characterise the adverse event profiles of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The most frequently reported adverse events in patients aged > or =60 years with major depressive disorder receiving sertraline 50 to 150 mg/day were dry mouth, headache, diarrhoea, nausea, insomnia, somnolence, constipation, dizziness, sweating and taste abnormalities. The tolerability profile of sertraline is generally similar in younger and elderly patients. Sertraline has a low potential for drug interactions at the level of the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. In addition, no dosage adjustments are warranted for elderly patients solely based on age. CONCLUSION: Sertraline is an effective and well tolerated antidepressant for the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients aged > or =60 years. Since elderly patients are particularly prone to the anticholinergic effects of TCAs as a class, SSRIs such as sertraline are likely to be a better choice for the treatment of major depressive disorder in this age group. In addition, sertraline may have advantages over the SSRIs paroxetine, fluoxetine and fluvoxamine in elderly patients because of the drug's comparatively low potential for drug interactions, which is of importance in patient groups such as the elderly who are likely to receive more than one drug regimen.     

Eplerenone : a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in patients with post-myocardial infarction heart failure

Eplerenone (Inspra) is a selective aldosterone blocker. When added to standard medical therapy, eplerenone significantly improved morbidity and mortality in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and clinical evidence of heart failure following acute myocardial infarction (MI), in a well designed, placebo-controlled trial known as EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-acute myocardial infarction Heart failure Efficacy and SUrvival Study). Although eplerenone was generally well tolerated, it was associated with a higher incidence of hyperkalaemia than placebo.Cost-effectiveness analyses based on this trial have been performed in the US, The Netherlands, Germany, France and Spain. Direct medical costs were analysed based on prospectively collected resource-use data with local costs applied; modelling was conducted to calculate incremental costs per life-year or QALY gained, with survival curves assumed to remain parallel after treatment ended. Eplerenone was associated with a gain of 0.0304 life-years (approximately 11 days) compared with placebo during the study period.Based on these analyses, eplerenone was cost effective compared with placebo in patients with LV systolic dysfunction and heart failure after an MI when added to standard therapy for 16 months. The incremental cost per life-year gained for eplerenone versus placebo (for a range of three different life-expectancy projections) was 10,402-21,876 US dollars in the US (year 2001 costs, except for eplerenone [2004]) [equivalent to 12,274-25,814 euro; mid-2001 exchange rate], 5,365-12,795 euro for The Netherlands (year 2003 costs), 6,956-14,628 euro for Germany, 5,432-11,423 euro for France and 8,626-18,141 euro for Spain (year of costing not reported). The US, Dutch, French and Spanish analyses estimated that >90% of observations for incremental cost per life-year gained were below a threshold of 50,000 US dollars or 50,000 euro. Incremental costs per QALY gained for eplerenone versus placebo in the US, Dutch, French and Spanish analyses were 15,330-32,405 US dollars (18,089-38,238 euro), 12,148, 8,005-16,922 euro and 12,713-26, 873 euro, respectively.Clinical and pharmacoeconomic data comparing eplerenone with another active drug, such as spironolactone, in this patient population are not available.In conclusion, when added to standard therapy in patients with LV systolic dysfunction and heart failure after an acute MI, eplerenone was associated with significant reductions in mortality and morbidity compared with placebo. Despite some inherent limitations, available pharmacoeconomic data from Europe and the US indicate that eplerenone is a cost-effective treatment compared with placebo in terms of incremental cost per life-year gained in this patient population.