Search

Purpose: Antivascular endothelial growth factor agents are increasingly used in diabetic macular oedema (DME); however, there are few studies exploring their use in DME in real‐world settings. Methods: POLARIS was a noninterventional, multicentre study to monitor 12‐month outcomes in patients starting ranibizumab treatment in routine practices. The primary outcome was mean change in visual acuity (VA) from baseline to month 12 (last observation carried forward approach). Other outcomes included mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT) and resource utilization. Visual acuity (VA) outcomes were also stratified by country, baseline visual acuity score (VAS), sex, age and injection frequency. Results: Outcomes were analysed from all treated patients (n = 804) and from first‐year completers (patients who had a visual acuity assessment at 12 months; n = 568). The mean (SD) baseline VAS was 59.4 (15.9) letters, and the mean change in visual acuity was 4.4 letters (95% confidence interval: 3.3–5.4) at month 12 (study eye; first‐year completers). The mean number of injections (study eye) was 4.9, and the mean number of all visits (any eye) was 10 (58% were injection visits) over 12 months (first‐year completers). The mean (SD) baseline CRT was 410.6 (128.8) μm, and the mean change in CRT was −115.2 μm at month 12 (study eye; first‐year completers). Visual acuity (VA) outcomes were generally comparable across most countries and subgroups and were greatest in patients with the lowest baseline VAS (≤60 letters). Conclusion: POLARIS showed that real‐world outcomes in DME patients starting treatment with ranibizumab were lower than those observed in clinical studies, in spite of extensive monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a burden on healthcare systems. Standard treatment involves parenteral anticoagulation overlapping with a vitamin K antagonist, an approach that is effective but associated with limitations including the need for frequent coagulation monitoring. The direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban is similarly effective to standard therapy as a single-drug treatment for VTE and does not require routine coagulation monitoring. The objective of this economic evaluation was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with standard VTE treatment from a UK perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed using data and probabilities derived from the EINSTEIN DVT and EINSTEIN PE studies of rivaroxaban and other published sources. Health outcomes included VTE rates, bleeding events avoided, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: There was greater discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy with rivaroxaban than with standard therapy, irrespective of indication and treatment duration. Rivaroxaban was associated with per-patient cost savings for each treatment duration modelled (3, 6 and 12 months), and these were greatest with shorter durations. Rivaroxaban was found to be dominant (cheaper and more effective) and, therefore, cost-effective, in both patients with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in all three treatment duration groups, and was also cost-effective in patients requiring lifelong anticoagulation (ICERs: £8677 per QALY and £7072 per QALY in patients with index deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, respectively). The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban was largely insensitive to variations in one-way sensitivity analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, rivaroxaban had a consistent probability of being cost-effective, compared with LMWH/VKA treatment, of around 80% regardless of index VTE or duration of anticoagulation therapy (3, 6, 12 months or lifelong). Conclusions: This analysis suggests that rivaroxaban represents a cost-effective choice for acute treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and secondary prevention of VTE in the UK, compared with LMWH/VKA treatment, regardless of the required treatment duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumourgst (GIST) who fail currently available treatments imatinib and sunitinib (third-line treatment-eligible GIST) is unknown, but is expected to be below an ultra-orphan disease threshold of 2/100,000 population used in England and Wales. Our study was designed to estimate the prevalence and absolute number of UK patients with unresectable/metastatic GIST at first-, second- and eventually third-line treatment. Methods: Our open population model estimates the probability that the prevalence of UK third-line treatment-eligible GIST patients will remain under the ultra-orphan disease threshold. Model parameters for incidence, proportion of unresectable/metastatic disease and survival estimates for GIST patients were obtained from a targeted literature review and a UK cancer register. The robustness of the results was checked through differing scenarios taking extreme values of the input parameters. Results: The base-case scenario estimated a prevalence of third-line treatment-eligible GIST of 1/100,000 and a prevalence count of 598 with a 99.9% likelihood of being below the ultra-orphan disease threshold. The extreme scenarios, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and threshold analysis confirmed the robustness of these results. Conclusions: The prevalence of third-line treatment-eligible GIST is very low and highly likely below the ultra-orphan disease threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]