Search

Chemotherapy; Quality of life; Symptoms Quimioterapia; Calidad de vida; Síntomas Quimioteràpia; Qualitat de vida; Símptomes Background In a phase III, randomised, active-controlled study (EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9; R2810-ONC-1676; NCT03257267) and cemiplimab significantly improved survival versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer who had progressed on platinum-based therapy. Here we report patient-reported outcomes in this pivotal study. Methods Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or investigator's choice of chemotherapy in 6-week cycles. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 during cycles 1–16. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning (PF) were secondary end-points in the statistical hierarchy. Results Of 608 patients (304/arm), 77.8% patients had squamous cell carcinoma and 22.2% patients had adenocarcinoma. Questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% throughout. In the squamous cell carcinoma population, overall between-group differences statistically significantly favoured cemiplimab in GHS/QoL (8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.77–13.21; P = 0.0003) and PF (8.35; 95% CI: 4.08–12.62; P < 0.0001). Treatment differences favoured cemiplimab in both histologic populations by cycle 2. Overall changes from baseline in most functioning and symptom scales favoured cemiplimab, with clinically meaningful treatment differences in role functioning, appetite loss and pain in both populations. The sensitivity analyses, responder analyses and time to definitive deterioration favoured cemiplimab in both populations. Conclusions Cemiplimab conferred favourable differences in GHS/QoL and PF compared with chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer, with benefits in PF by cycle 2, and clinically meaningful differences favouring cemiplimab in role functioning, appetite loss, and pain. This work was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi.

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%. Methods A 30-year “partitioned survival” model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. Results Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the “preprogression” (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and “postprogression” (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI −0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. Conclusions Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA appr...

We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%.In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing.Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy.Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Aims: To examine real-world treatment patterns for Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHIs) for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: HHI initiators between January 2013 and June 2019 were identified from IBM MarketScan® claims data. Time to treatment discontinuation and reinitiation were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods using a 60-day grace period. Results: Among 526 patients with basal cell carcinoma who initiated an HHI, median time to first discontinuation was 144 days, and risk of discontinuation by 12 months was 88.0%. Probability of reinitiation within 12 months was 19.7%, and median time to second discontinuation was 118 days. Conclusion: HHI discontinuation was common and reinitiation uncommon in clinical practice. Future research should evaluate persistence with recently approved therapies.

Background In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) >= 50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants. Methods Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 >= 50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration. Results In PD-L1 >= 50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population. Conclusions Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden. WOS:000875663600001 Q1

In 2018, cemiplimab-rwlc became the first systemic treatment approved by the US FDA for patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In 2019, conditional approvals were granted by Health Canada and the European Commission for the same indications. Limited data exist pertaining to the clinical characteristics, disease progression and survivorship of patients with advanced CSCC in real-world clinical practice. CemiplimAb-rwlc Survivorship and Epidemiology (CASE) is a prospective Phase IV, noninterventional, survivorship and epidemiology study that will enroll patients with advanced CSCC who have recently initiated or who plan to receive cemiplimab in a real-world setting. Trial registration number: NCT03836105.

CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T) are approved for treatment of adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) following at least two lines of therapy.This study describes real-world treatment patterns after CAR T in adults with DLBCL. It includes adults diagnosed with DLBCL in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental healthcare claims databases administered CAR T between 2017 and 2019 (index event) and at least 6 months of continuous health plan enrollment pre-index. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate risk and time to first subsequent treatment after CAR T, as a proxy for CAR T failure.Among 129 patients meeting study criteria, most (123; 95.4%) were hospitalized during CAR T therapy. Median length of stay was 17 (25th-75th percentile, 13-22) days. Estimated 6-month risk of subsequent treatment was 36.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.1-45.8%). During median follow-up of 195 (25th-75th percentile, 102-362) days, median time to the first line of therapy after CAR T, accounting for censoring, was 378 days (95% CI 226, not reached). Among 48 patients who received another therapy after CAR T, 58.3% received immunotherapy, 50.0% radiation therapy, 25.0% chemotherapy, 25.0% targeted therapy, and 12.5% hematopoietic stem cell transplant.Among real-world patients with DLBCL treated with CAR T, the risk of not achieving a durable response is considerable; additional, effective options for DLBCL salvage treatment are needed.

Until recently, patients discontinuing first-line (1L) hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) had few subsequent treatment options. The objective of this study was to describe the treatment journey and prognosis of patients discontinuing 1L HHI for BCC.This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with BCC who discontinued 1L HHI treatment in The US Oncology Network between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2019 (with follow-up until 1 May 2020). Two cohorts were identified: patients who initiated a second-line (2L) treatment (2L initiators), and patients with 1L progression or toxicity without pathology-confirmed complete response who did not initiate 2L treatment (2L non-initiators). Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and outcomes are reported for each cohort.Among 115 patients with BCC who received 1L HHI treatment, 63.5% (n = 73/115) discontinued 1L HHIs. Of those, 50.7% (n = 37/73) discontinued because of documented toxicity or progression, without evidence of a complete response. We identified 4 patients who initiated 2L systemic treatment (median age 68.7 years, 100.0% female) and 15 patients who were eligible for the 2L non-initiator cohort (median age 80.2 years, 20.0% female). Median 1L HHI duration was 6.8 months (range 1.9-20.6 months) for the 2L non-initiator cohort and 8.6 months (range 6.8-42.2 months) for 2L initiators. At the end of follow-up, among 2L non-initiators (median follow-up duration 9.7 months), 40.0% were lost to follow-up, 33.3% had died, 20.0% continued observation, and 6.7% transitioned to an academic medical center or hospital; among 2L initiators (median follow-up duration 6.3 months), 50.0% were lost to follow-up, 25.0% had died, and 25.0% continued observation.Following 1L HHI discontinuation, lack of standardized care and suboptimal outcomes were observed, including limited receipt of 2L treatment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of newer BCC treatment options.

Introduction Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate. Methods Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care. Results Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold. Conclusion In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment. Funding Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00946-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective.We evaluated the effect of sarilumab on patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the 7-domain RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale.Methods.Two phase III, randomized, controlled trials of sarilumab in patients with active, longstanding RA were analyzed: (1) sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARD) versus placebo + csDMARD [TARGET (NCT01709578)]; and (2) sarilumab 200 mg versus adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg monotherapy [MONARCH (NCT02332590)]. Least-squares mean (LSM) differences in RAID total score (range 0–10) and 7 key RA symptoms, including pain and fatigue (baseline to Weeks 12 and 24), were compared. “Responders” by RAID total score were defined by improvements from baseline ≥ minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and ≥ patient-acceptable symptom-state (PASS) at endpoint.Results.Sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg + csDMARD were nominally superior (p < 0.05) versus placebo + csDMARD and 200 mg sarilumab versus ADA 40 mg in LSM differences for RAID total score at weeks 12 (−0.93 and −1.13; −0.49, respectively) and 24 (−0.75 and −1.01; −0.78), and all effects of RA (except functional impairment in MONARCH Week 12). Effects were greater in physical domains (e.g., pain) than mental domains (e.g., emotional well-being). More patients receiving sarilumab versus placebo or ADA reported improvements ≥ MCID and PASS in total RAID scores at both assessments.Conclusion.Based on the RAID, sarilumab + csDMARD or as monotherapy reduced the effect of RA on patients’ lives to a greater extent than placebo + csDMARD or ADA monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01709578 and NCT02332590)

Introduction To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy administered every 2 weeks (q2w) versus other monotherapies of biologic, targeted and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, csDMARDs) at recommended doses for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are intolerant of or inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR). Methods A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted on 24-week efficacy outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria, and European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28)

BackgroundTo provide pooled longer term data from three groups of a phase 2 study of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), and to determine duration of response (DOR) and impact on quality of life (QoL).MethodsPatients received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (group 1, metastatic CSCC [mCSCC], n=59; group 2, locally advanced CSCC, n=78) or cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (group 3, mCSCC, n=56). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). QoL was repeatedly measured at day 1 of each treatment cycle (groups 1 and 2: 8 weeks; group 3: 9 weeks).ResultsMedian duration of follow-up was 15.7 months. Overall, ORR per ICR was 46.1% (95% CI: 38.9% to 53.4%). Complete response (CR) rates were 20.3%, 12.8%, and 16.1% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median time to CR was 11.2 months. Among patients with partial response or CR, the estimated proportion of patients with ongoing response at 12 months from the first objective response was 87.8% (95% CI: 78.5% to 93.3%), with median DOR not reached. Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of overall survival (OS) was 73.3% (95% CI: 66.1% to 79.2%) at 24 months, with median OS not reached. Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL improvements were observed as early as cycle 2 and were significantly improved and durable until last assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to first clinically meaningful improvement for pain was 2.1 (95% CI: 2.0 to 3.7) months and was significantly improved in responders versus non-responders (pConclusionsThis is the largest (n=193) clinical dataset for a programmed cell death-1 inhibitor against advanced CSCC, confirming the sustained substantial clinical activity of cemiplimab in these patients, including new findings of improved CR rates over time, increasing DOR, and durable pain control and GHS/QoL improvement.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02760498), https://clinicaltrialsgov/ct2/show/NCT02760498.

Aim: To estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, versus EGFR inhibitors, pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. Patients & methods: We performed an indirect treatment comparison of cemiplimab and other available systemic therapies for patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Results: Cemiplimab was associated with benefits in OS (hazard ratios range: 0.07–0.52) and progression-free survival (hazard ratios range: 0.30–0.67) versus EGFR inhibitors and pembrolizumab (data from KEYNOTE-629). Cemiplimab was more efficacious versus platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of OS. Conclusion: Cemiplimab may offer improvements in survival for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients compared with existing systemic therapies.

Cheryl P Ferrufino,1 Julie Munakata,1 Wenhui Wei,2 Clare Proudfoot,3 Andreas Kuznik,4 Susan H Boklage,4 Chieh-I Chen4 1IQVIA, Fairfax, VA, USA; 2Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 3Sanofi, Guildford, UK; 4Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY,USA Objective: To estimate the 5-year budget impact (BI) on a US health plan of introducing sarilumab – a human immunoglobulin G1 anti-IL-6 receptor α monoclonal antibody – as combination treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: BI analysis was conducted from a commercial payer perspective. Treatment-eligible populations included adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors-IR. All licensed biologic treatments recommended by the American College of Rheumatology guidelines were included.Results: For a hypothetical plan of one million members, 409 csDMARD-IR and 345 TNF-IR patients were annually eligible for combination therapy and 226 csDMARD and TNF-IR patients for monotherapy with sarilumab. Based on 2018 US direct treatment costs, the introduction of sarilumab was estimated to save $526,424, $322,637 and $264,306 over 5 years for csDMARD-IR combination therapy patients, TNF-IR combination therapy patients, and csDMARD-IR/TNF-IR monotherapy patients, respectively. As sarilumab absorbed a greater market share over the horizon, annual savings increased from years 1 to 5, $28,610 (–0.14%) to $194,646 (–0.83%) in csDMARD-IR, $16,986 (–0.11%) to $120,893 (–0.67%) in TNF-IR, and $14,256 (–0.13%) to $98,040 (–0.79%) in monotherapy. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to variations in sarilumab adherence.Conclusion: Total cost savings of introducing sarilumab to a health-care plan accrued from years 1 to 5, attributable to the lower treatment cost, stable dosing paradigm, and price parity for the two available doses (150 and 200 mg every 2 weeks) compared with alternative biologic DMARDs that have substantial variability in dose titration/schedules. Keywords: treatment costs, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, IL-6 inhibitorCorrigendumfor this paper has been published

Introduction After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers. Methods This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies. Results There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P

Objective To estimate the 5-year budget impact (BI) on a US health plan of introducing sarilumab – a human immunoglobulin G1 anti-IL-6 receptor α monoclonal antibody – as combination treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods BI analysis was conducted from a commercial payer perspective. Treatment-eligible populations included adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors-IR. All licensed biologic treatments recommended by the American College of Rheumatology guidelines were included. Results For a hypothetical plan of one million members, 409 csDMARD-IR and 345 TNF-IR patients were annually eligible for combination therapy and 226 csDMARD and TNF-IR patients for monotherapy with sarilumab. Based on 2018 US direct treatment costs, the introduction of sarilumab was estimated to save $526,424, $322,637 and $264,306 over 5 years for csDMARD-IR combination therapy patients, TNF-IR combination therapy patients, and csDMARD-IR/TNF-IR monotherapy patients, respectively. As sarilumab absorbed a greater market share over the horizon, annual savings increased from years 1 to 5, $28,610 (−0.14%) to $194,646 (−0.83%) in csDMARD-IR, $16,986 (−0.11%) to $120,893 (−0.67%) in TNF-IR, and $14,256 (−0.13%) to $98,040 (−0.79%) in monotherapy. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to variations in sarilumab adherence. Conclusion Total cost savings of introducing sarilumab to a health-care plan accrued from years 1 to 5, attributable to the lower treatment cost, stable dosing paradigm, and price parity for the two available doses (150 and 200 mg every 2 weeks) compared with alternative biologic DMARDs that have substantial variability in dose titration/schedules.

Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients.To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR.Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations.Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894.Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi.This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Background Heterogeneity in assessments of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease remission, based on physician judgment and patient self-reports versus standardized measures, have previously been reported. This study explored the prevalence and types of discordance between physician perception versus objective data of RA disease activity in real-world clinical practice in the US. Methods Data were from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme (DSP; January to March 2014), a cross-sectional survey of US rheumatologists and their patients. RA remission based on physician judgment versus Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (3)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28(3)-ESR) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores were compared using descriptive analyses; patient and physician factors associated with discordance were identified using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Results Of 101 rheumatologists participating (completing patient-record forms for 843 patients), 56.4% based assessment of remission on clinical judgment alone. Of 531 patients eligible for the discordance analysis, 49.7% were in remission based on rheumatologists’ evaluation, and 30.7% were eligible based on DAS28(3)-ESR. Compared with DAS28(3)-ESR criteria, 25.8% of patients’ disease remission was negatively discordant (overestimated remission) based on clinical perception. These patients were mostly administered biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and were without a treat-to-target strategy followed by their rheumatologist (P

Marie Fournier,1 Chieh-I Chen,2 Andreas Kuznik,2 Clare Proudfoot,3 Usha G Mallya,4 Kaleb Michaud5,6 1Health Economics & Value Assessment, Sanofi France, Chilly-Mazarin, France; 2Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY, USA; 3Sanofi, Guildford, UK; 4Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 5University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA; 6The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, KS, USA Purpose: Treatment outcomes and direct medical costs were examined, from a US health payer perspective, of monotherapy with sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 2 weeks (Q2W) vs adalimumab 40 mg SC Q2W/QW in adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who are intolerant of, inadequate responders to, or considered inappropriate candidates for continued methotrexate treatment.Patients and methods: Short-term analysis was based on 24-week wholesale acquisition costs of drugs and treatment response observed in the MONARCH Phase III trial (NCT02332590) per American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50 criteria and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Moderate/Good Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Long-term analysis, which also considered drug administration and routine care costs, was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and a 1- to 10-year Markov model with microsimulation of patient profiles from the MOBILITY Phase III trial (NCT01061736). Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by mapping 6-month ACR levels to a relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index score and via published algorithms.Results: For sarilumab and adalimumab, respectively, 24-week drug costs were $18,954 and $29,232, and costs per responder were $26,435 vs $50,055 on ACR20; $41,475 vs $98,425 on ACR50; and $22,511 vs $41,230 on EULAR Moderate/Good. Base case results at 10 years for total costs and QALYs were $176,977 and 2.75 for sarilumab and $212,136 and 2.61 for adalimumab, respectively. Sarilumab was consistently the more effective and cost-saving treatment across all short-term and long-term incremental analyses.Conclusion: Sarilumab monotherapy was the economically dominant treatment on incremental cost per responder and incremental cost per QALY compared with adalimumab monotherapy. These results were maintained within the sensitivity analyses. Keywords: treatment costs, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, IL-6 inhibitor, rheumatoid arthritis, cost per responser

9078 Background: Cemiplimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, improved survival and progression-free survival vs platinum doublet chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC and PD-ligand(L)1 expression ≥50% in the EMPOWER-Lung 1 Phase 3 study (NCT03088540). Since pts with advanced NSCLC have a high symptom burden that adversely impacts QoL and functioning, these outcomes were evaluated as secondary endpoints in the clinical trial. Methods: Pts with advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥50% and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized to IV cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W (n=356) or platinum doublet chemo (n=354). At baseline (BL) and day 1 of each treatment cycle (C) to C15, pts were administered the EORTC core questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its lung cancer specific module (QLQ-LC13) to assess symptoms, functioning, and Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL. In the intent-to-treat population, mixed-effects repeated measures models were used to estimate least squares (LS) mean change from BL on all scales. Kaplan–Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration, defined as worsening ≥10 points from BL observed at all subsequent time points or patient withdrawal after worsening; hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs estimated the likelihood of definitive deterioration. Results: BL scores showed moderate to high levels of functioning and low symptom burden. Cemiplimab-treated pts had lower likelihood of definitive deterioration vs chemo on key symptoms of dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, and diarrhea vs chemo (all P

Objectives After treatment failure with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can switch to another TNFi (TNFi cyclers) or to a targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with a non-TNFi mechanism of action (non-TNFi switchers). This study compared treatment patterns and treatment effectiveness between TNFi cyclers and non-TNFi switchers in patients with RA. Methods The analysis included a cohort of patients from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial database with RA who switched from a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) either to another TNFi or to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2014. A claims-based algorithm was used to estimate treatment effectiveness based on six criteria (adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional therapy, no switch to another targeted DMARD, no new/increased oral glucocorticoid, and intra-articular injections on

not available.

not available.

Table S1. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics by inclusion in analysis. (DOCX 16 kb)

We have developed a digital and multiplexed platform for the rapid detection and telemonitoring of infections caused by Ebola and Marburg filoviruses. The system includes a flow cell assay cartridge that captures specific antibodies with microarrayed recombinant antigens from all six species of filovirus, and a smartphone fluorescent reader for high-performance interpretation of test results. Multiplexed viral proteins, which are expandable to include greater numbers of probes, were incorporated to obtain highest confidence results by cross-correlation, and a custom smartphone application was developed for data analysis, interpretation, and communication. The smartphone reader utilizes an opto-electro-mechanical hardware attachment that snaps at the back of a Motorola smartphone and provides a user interface to manage the operation, acquire test results, and communicate with cloud service. The application controls the hardware attachment to turn on LEDs and digitally record the optically enhanced images. Assay processing time is approximately 20 min for microliter amounts of blood, and test results are digitally processed and displayed within 15 s. Furthermore, a secure cloud service was developed for the telemonitoring of test results generated by the smartphone readers in the field. Assay system results were tested with sera from nonhuman primates that received a live attenuated EBOV vaccine. This integrated system will provide a rapid, reliable, and digital solution to prevent the rapid overwhelming of medical systems and resources during EVD or MVD outbreaks. Further, this disease-monitoring system will be useful in resource-limited countries where there is a need for dispersed laboratory analysis of recent or active infections.

Objectives The study aimed to assess the burden of RA among the US Medicare population (aged ≥65 years) by comparing co-morbidities, health-care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs against matched non-RA Medicare patients. Methods Data were obtained from the Medicare fee-for-service claims database from 2010 to 2013. RA Medicare patients were identically matched with Medicare patients without RA (controls) based on demographics. Bivariate analyses were conducted to examine differences between cohorts for co-morbidities, HCRU and costs. A generalized linear model was used to test relationships between patient-level characteristics, HCRU and costs. Results The study population included 115 867 RA patients and 115 867 age-, sex-, race- and region-matched non-RA controls. Mean age was 75.2 years; 79.4% were female. Co-morbidities were greater in RA vs non-RA patients [Charlson Co-morbidity Index (excluding RA): 1.86 vs 1.00; P

Table S1. LSM changes in RAID individual domain scores from baseline to week 24 with sarilumab 200Â mg or adalimumab 40Â mg q2w. Table S2. LSM change from baseline to week 12 with sarilumab 200Â mg or adalimumab 40Â mg q2w. (DOCX 42 kb)

Background Patients with RA experience a variety of signs and symptoms and report significant physical and psychological impairment. The RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale is a disease-specific measure of the impact of RA on patients9 lives. RAID was assessed in two Phase 3 randomized trials of sarilumab, a human monoclonal antibody directed against the IL-6 receptor-α (TARGET [NCT01709578]; MONARCH [NCT02332590]). Objectives To evaluate patient-perceived impact of sarilumab on RA using the RAID scale vs either placebo + conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or adalimumab. Methods TARGET assessed sarilumab 150mg and 200mg added to csDMARDs vs placebo in patients with RA intolerant of or not responding to anti-TNF therapy. MONARCH assessed sarilumab 200mg monotherapy vs adalimumab 40mg monotherapy in patients with RA either intolerant of, inadequate responders to, or considered inappropriate candidates for continued treatment with methotrexate. Treatments were administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. RAID has 7 single-item domains, each rated by patients on an 11-point numeric rating scale from 0 (absence) to 10 (extreme). A total score from 0 to 10 (with lower scores indicative of less impact of disease) is calculated by weighting responses for each item based on patient assessment of the relative importance of the item. RAID was assessed at baseline (BL), Weeks 12 and 24. Least square mean (LSM) changes from BL in total score (Weeks 12 and 24) and domains (Week 24 only) were analysed with a mixed model for repeated measures, including treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction (and prior csDMARD therapy in TARGET) as fixed effects and BL as a covariate. RAID was tested outside of trial hierarchy and statistical significance is not claimed; nominal p-values are provided. Post-hoc categorical change analyses were conducted to identify “responders” in the total score (improvements ≥ minimum clinically important difference from BL to Week 24 [absolute change of 3 or relative change of 50% in total score]). Patients discontinuing therapy/requiring rescue medication prior to endpoint were classified as non-responders. Results Sarilumab was superior (nominal p Conclusions Assessed using RAID, sarilumab either with csDMARDs or as monotherapy reduced the impact of RA on patients9 lives to a greater extent than placebo+csDMARDs or adalimumab monotherapy, with benefits shown on total RAID and all 7 individual domain scores. Acknowledgements This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Disclosure of Interest L. Gossec Consultant for: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Roche, and UCB, V. Strand Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, CORRONA, Crescendo, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, C. Proudfoot Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, C. Chen Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, S. Guillonneau Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, T. Kimura Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, H. van Hoogstraten Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, E. Mangan Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, M. Reaney Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi

Background The phase 3 MONARCH superiority study (NCT02332590) compared efficacy and safety of sarilumab (a human anti-IL-6Rα monoclonal antibody [mAb]) 200 mg administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (q2w), with adalimumab (an anti-TNF-α mAb) 40 mg administered q2w, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were either intolerant of, or inadequate responders to methotrexate treatment. Sarilumab monotherapy demonstrated superiority to adalimumab monotherapy in reduction of disease activity and improvements in physical function and signs and symptoms of RA, with safety and tolerability consistent with IL-6R or TNF blockade. Objectives To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with sarilumab vs adalimumab from MONARCH. Methods PROs assessed at baseline, weeks 12 and 24 included ACR components (Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity [PtGA], Pain visual analog scale [VAS], Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Morning Stiffness VAS, RA Impact of Disease (RAID) and RA-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Least-squares mean (LSM) between-group differences were determined by mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and region as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline PRO scores as continuous covariates. A P-value Results Baseline demographics, disease characteristics and PROs were generally balanced between treatment groups (n=184 sarilumab; n=185 adalimumab). Improvements from baseline to week 24 were greater with sarilumab vs adalimumab across PtGA, Pain VAS, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, Morning Stiffness VAS, RAID and WPS-RA global scores (all P Conclusions Sarilumab monotherapy compared with adalimumab monotherapy resulted in greater and clinically meaningful improvements in many PROs, including patient-reported disease activity, pain, physical function, morning stiffness, productivity, health related quality of life and health status. Acknowledgements This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Disclosure of Interest V. Strand Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, CORRONA, Crescendo, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, L. Gossec Grant/research support from: Member of institution that received research funding for the current study, C. Proudfoot Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, C. Chen Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., M. Reaney Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, S. Guillonneau Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, T. Kimura Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., J. van Adelsberg Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Y. Lin Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, E. Mangan Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., H. van Hoogstraten Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, G. R. Burmester Grant/research support from: Member of institution that received research funding for the current study

Overactive bladder (OAB) and related conditions, such as urge urinary incontinence (UI), can interfere with work, leisure activities, and healthy sleep patterns.To report (a) employee urinary antispasmodic (UA) medication persistence and adherence; (b) the impact of salary and copay on adherence; and (c) the impact of UA adherence on medical, pharmacy, sick leave (SL), short- and long-term disability (STD, LTD), workers' compensation costs, work absence days, and turnover.This retrospective study used a 2001-2011 database of claims, payroll, and demographic data from 27 large U.S. employers. Employees aged 18-64 years taking UA medications with health plan enrollment from 6 months before the index UA medication prescription to 12 months after were included. Persistence (days until first ≥ 30-day gap in UA medication supply) and adherence (percentage of the annual post-index period with available medication) were assessed using survival analysis and generalized linear regression models that controlled for demographics, job-related factors, copay, and pre-index employee benefit utilization. 2,960 employees met study criteria. Median days of persistence by OAB subtype were 76, 82, 43, 66, and 60 for urge UI, mixed UI, nocturnal UI, other OAB, and no diagnosis, respectively (P less than 0.05 for urge and mixed vs. no diagnosis). Increased copay and copay as a percentage of salary were associated with lower adherence. Employees with ≥ 80% adherence had lower medical, SL, and STD and higher overall drug costs than employees with less than 80% adherence. This study suggests potential economic benefits to employers from increased UA adherence. Additionally, economic factors such as ability to pay influence adherence to UA medications.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous linezolid as a first-line agent against intravenous vancomycin in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus–confirmed nosocomial pneumonia in four Chinese cities. Methods: A decision-analytic model of 4-week time horizon was used to conduct costeffectiveness analyses from the payer’s perspective. Clinical outcomes and resource use data were derived from a head-to-head trial, supplemented with local cost estimates based on hospital data via an expert panel. A series of scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of uncertainty around model inputs. All results were reported in 2012 Chinese Renminbi. Results: The predicted probability of overall treatment success was 0.629 and 0.602 for linezolid and vancomycin, respectively. Total inpatient costs varied across the four cities, ranging from ¥58,835 to ¥86,894 for linezolid and ¥58,390 to ¥87,033 for vancomycin, respectively. Linezolid was demonstrated to be a dominant treatment strategy in Guangzhou. In Beijing, Nanjing, and Xi’an, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of additional successfully treated patient were ¥1,861, ¥163, and ¥16,509, respectively. Dominance by linezolid was observed in some scenario analyses with parameters such as treatment duration, inclusion of cost of managing adverse events, and drug acquisition costs being the main drivers of cost-effectiveness results. Conclusions: Despite linezolid’s higher drug acquisition cost, its superior clinical efficacy renders it a likely cost-effective alternative for the treatment of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus–confirmed nosocomial pneumonia as compared with branded vancomycin from the payer perspectives of Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, and Xi’an.

Objective The goal of this study was to analyze the economic benefits of introducing the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) into the City Immunity Program in Shanghai. Methods A decision-analytic model designed for pneumococcal disease and outcomes of pneumococcal infection was populated with local, age-specific incidence and cost data to estimate the expected economic benefits from vaccinating a birth cohort of 172,183 infants in Shanghai over a 1-year period using a cross-sectional approach. The analysis was assumed to occur in a year at which time the direct and indirect effects of vaccination have reached a steady state. Costs were calculated from a payer perspective and included vaccination program costs and direct medical expenditures from pneumococcal-related disease. Results The model predicts that 112,629 cases of pneumococcal-related disease could be prevented during a given year following the introduction of the PCV7 vaccine into the City Immunity Program in Shanghai, leading to a reduction of ¥187,923,359 (US $29,067,790) in direct medical costs. Overall, the inclusion of the PCV7 vaccine is estimated to have a cost-per-life-year saved of ¥37,468 (US $5,796) and a cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year gained of ¥41,603 (US $6,435) when both the direct and indirect effects of the vaccine resulting from herd protection are taken into account. Conclusions Results suggest that including PCV7 into the City Immunity Program in Shanghai could be considered cost-effective under generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds when both the direct and indirect effects of the vaccine are considered in the analysis.

ObjectiveTo compare efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg and 150 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARDs) versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs and placebo+csDMARDs, in inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR) or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi-IR).MethodsSystematic literature review and network meta-analyses (NMA) conducted on 24 week efficacy and safety outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, modified total sharp score (mTSS, including 52 weeks), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70, European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28)Results53 trials were selected for NMA. csDMARD-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg+csDMARDs and 150 mg+csDMARDs were superior versus placebo+csDMARDs on all outcomes. Against most targeted DMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed no statistically significant differences, except superiority to baricitinib 2 mg, tofacitinib and certolizumab on 24 week mTSS. Sarilumab 150 mg was similar to all targeted DMARDs. TNFi-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg was similar to abatacept, golimumab, tocilizumab 4 mg and 8 mg/kg intravenously and rituximab on ACR20/50/70, superior to baricitinib 2 mg on ACR50 and DAS28ConclusionsResults suggest that in csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR (a smaller network), sarilumab+csDMARD had superior efficacy and similar safety versus placebo+csDMARDs and at least similar efficacy and safety versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs.

Objective To evaluate effects of the anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody sarilumab administered with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the TARGET trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF-IR). Methods 546 patients (81.9% female, mean age 52.9 years) were randomised to placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks + csDMARDs. PROs included patient global assessment (PtGA); pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36); FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F); Work Productivity Survey-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Changes from baseline at weeks 12 and 24 were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures; post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values. Results Sarilumab + csDMARDs doses resulted in improvements from baseline at week 12 vs placebo + csDMARDs in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F that were maintained at week 24. Sarilumab improved morning stiffness and reduced the impact of RA on work, family, social/leisure activities participation (WPS-RA) and on patients9 lives (RAID). Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥MCID and ≥ normative scores were greater with sarilumab than placebo. Conclusions In patients with TNF-IR RA, 150 and 200 mg sarilumab + csDMARDs resulted in clinically meaningful patient-reported benefits on pain, fatigue, function, participation and health status at 12 and 24 weeks that exceeded placebo + csDMARDs, and were consistent with the clinical profile previously reported. Trial registration number NCT01709578; Results.

Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-6 receptor complex. In the MOBILITY phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT), sarilumab + methotrexate (MTX) treatment resulted in clinical improvements at 24 weeks that were maintained at 52 weeks in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), who have inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). These analyses indicate the effects of sarilumab + MTX versus placebo on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this RCT. Patients (n = 1197) were randomized to receive placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously + MTX every 2 weeks for 52 weeks; after 16 weeks, patients without ≥20 % improvement from baseline in swollen or tender joint counts on two consecutive assessments were offered open-label treatment. PROs included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), and functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F). Changes from baseline at weeks 24 and 52 were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements equal to or greater than minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and normative values in the FACIT-F and SF-36. Pearson correlation between observed PRO scores and clinical measures of disease activity was tested at week 24. Both doses of sarilumab + MTX vs placebo + MTX resulted in improvement from baseline by week 24 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F scores (p

Aims To estimate the prevalence of LUTS and OAB in a large, ethnically diverse US study. Methods This cross-sectional, population-representative survey was conducted via the Internet in the US among 10,000 men and women aged 18–70 (2,000 African-Americans [AA], 2,000 Hispanics, 6,000 whites). The LUTS tool assessed how often participants experienced LUTS during the past 4 weeks on a five-point Likert scale. OAB was defined by the presence of urinary urgency ≥ “sometimes” or ≥ “often,” and/or the presence of urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate group differences. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the impact of racial/ethnic group on OAB. Results Response rate, 56.7%. Prevalent LUTS included terminal dribble and nocturia across gender, post-micturition leaking (men), and stress incontinence (women). Prevalence of OAB ≥ “sometimes” and ≥ “often” were 17% and 8% in men and 30% and 20% in women—with significantly higher rates among AA men and women. A similar trend was found for UUI among men (AA, 10%; Hispanic and whites, 6%), while AA and white women had higher prevalence of UUI (19%) as compared to Hispanic women (16%). In logistic regression analyses, AA and Hispanic men and women were significantly more likely than whites to have OAB despite having lower prevalence of self-reported comorbid conditions and risk factors. Conclusions LUTS and OAB are highly prevalent in both men and women and increase with advancing age. Further, racial/ethnic group is a robust predictor of OAB in men and women. Neurourol. Urodynam. 32: 230–237, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background China has experienced several severe outbreaks of influenza over the past century: 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009. Influenza itself can be deadly; however, the increase in mortality during an influenza outbreak is also attributable to secondary bacterial infections, specifically pneumococcal disease. Given the history of pandemic outbreaks and the associated morbidity and mortality, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of a PCV7 vaccination program in China from the context of typical and pandemic influenza seasons. Methods A decision-analytic model was employed to evaluate the impact of a 7-valent pneumococcal vaccine (PCV7) infant vaccination program on the incidence, mortality, and cost associated with pneumococcal disease during a typical influenza season (15 % flu incidence) and influenza pandemic (30 % flu incidence) in China. The model incorporated Chinese data where available and included both direct and indirect (herd) effects on the unvaccinated population, assuming a point in time following the initial introduction of the vaccine where the impact of the indirect effects has reached a steady state, approximately seven years following the implementation of the vaccine program. Pneumococcal disease incidence, mortality, and costs were evaluated over a one year time horizon. Healthcare costs were calculated using a payer perspective and included vaccination program costs and direct medical expenditures from pneumococcal disease. Results The model predicted that routine PCV7 vaccination of infants in China would prevent 5,053,453 cases of pneumococcal disease and 76,714 deaths in a single year during a normal influenza season.The estimated incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios were ¥12,281 (US$1,900) per life-year saved and ¥13,737 (US$2,125) per quality-adjusted-life-year gained. During an influenza pandemic, the model estimated that routine vaccination with PCV7 would prevent 8,469,506 cases of pneumococcal disease and 707,526 deaths, and would be cost-saving. Conclusions Routine vaccination with PCV7 in China would be a cost-effective strategy at limiting the negative impact of influenza during a typical influenza season. During an influenza pandemic, the benefit of PCV7 in preventing excess pneumococcal morbidity and mortality renders a PCV7 vaccination program cost-saving.

The International Continence Society (ICS) identifies several urinary incontinence (UI) subtypes: urgency urinary incontinence (UUI), stress UI (SUI), and mixed UI (MUI). UUI is a common symptom of overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome. Based on the current ICS definition of OAB, all patients with UUI have OAB, whereas not all patients with OAB have UUI. Because UUI is a chronic condition that is expected to increase in prevalence as the population of elderly individuals grows, it is important to understand its economic burden on society and patients and its cost components. To summarize the published English language medical literature on estimates of the economic burden of UUI in the United States from a societal and patient perspective, including direct costs (diagnosis, treatment, routine care [including incontinence pads], and UUI-associated comorbidities/complications); indirect costs (lost wages by patients and caregivers and lost work productivity due to absenteeism and presenteeism); and intangible costs (pain, suffering, and decreased health-related quality of life). A PubMed search of the literature for articles on the economic burden of UUI in the United States was conducted using the search terms (urgency urinary incontinence OR urge incontinence OR mixed incontinence OR overactive bladder) AND (burden OR cost OR economic) AND (United States), with limits for English language, publication from 1991 to 2011, humans, and adults (19+ years). Only primary articles of non-neurogenic UUI in the United States were retained. Seven studies were identified that included data on the economic burden of UUI in the United States from a societal and patient perspective. Although estimates of the total economic burden of UUI include direct, indirect, and intangible costs, none of the 7 U.S. studies included all of these cost components. Furthermore, the costs of UUI often could not be fully extracted from the costs of OAB, which include patients with and without UUI, or the costs of other types of UI. The most recent cost analysis incorporated OAB with UUI prevalence rates and data on use of each cost component to calculate the total annual direct costs in 2007 for adults aged ≥ 25 years. The estimated total national cost of OAB with UUI in 2007 was $65.9 billion, with projected costs of $76.2 billion in 2015 and $82.6 billion in 2020. This 2007 estimate was markedly higher than those reported in older studies. Direct costs are the main driver of the overall cost of UUI in the United States. Studies that assessed patient costs indicated that the personal costs of routine care items for UUI and MUI represent a meaningful contribution to the overall economic burden of these conditions. These substantial personal expenditures may explain why patients reported that they were willing to pay considerable amounts for a treatment that would reduce the frequency of their UUI episodes. UUI in the United States is associated with a substantial economic burden from both a societal and patient perspective. Studies evaluating the impact of interventions that reduce the frequency of UUI episodes on the overall economic burden of UUI are warranted.