A retrospective study of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease : the effect of cerebrovascular disease on patient outcomes and the impact of biases on the results

Introduction: La démence peut être causée par la maladie d’Alzheimer (MA), la maladie cérébrovasculaire (MCEREV), ou une combinaison des deux. Lorsque la maladie cérébrovasculaire est associée à la démence, les chances de survie sont considérées réduites. Il reste à démontrer si le traitement avec des inhibiteurs de la cholinestérase (ChEIs), qui améliore les symptômes cognitifs et la fonction globale chez les patients atteints de la MA, agit aussi sur les formes vasculaires de démence. Objectifs: La présente étude a été conçue pour déterminer si la coexistence d’une MCEREV était associée avec les chances de survie ou la durée de la période jusqu’au placement en hebergement chez les patients atteints de la MA et traités avec des ChEIs. Des études montrant de moins bons résultats chez les patients souffrant de MCEREV que chez ceux n’en souffrant pas pourrait militer contre l’utilisation des ChEIs chez les patients atteints à la fois de la MA et la MCEREV. L'objectif d'une seconde analyse était d'évaluer pour la première fois chez les patients atteints de la MA l'impact potentiel du biais de « temps-immortel » (et de suivi) sur ces résultats (mort ou placement en hebergement). Méthodes: Une étude de cohorte rétrospective a été conduite en utilisant les bases de données de la Régie de l’Assurance Maladie du Québec (RAMQ) pour examiner la durée de la période jusqu’au placement en hebergement ou jusqu’au v décès des patients atteints de la MA, âgés de 66 ans et plus, avec ou sans MCEREV, et traités avec des ChEIs entre le 1er Juillet 2000 et le 30 Juin 2003. Puisque les ChEIs sont uniquement indiquées pour la MA au Canada, chaque prescription de ChEIs a été considérée comme un diagnostic de la MA. La MCEREV concomitante a été identifié sur la base d'un diagnostic à vie d’un accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) ou d’une endartériectomie, ou d’un diagnostic d'un accident ischémique transitoire au cours des six mois précédant la date d’entrée. Des analyses séparées ont été conduites pour les patients utilisant les ChEIs de façon persistante et pour ceux ayant interrompu la thérapie. Sept modèles de régression à risque proportionnel de Cox qui ont varié par rapport à la définition de la date d’entrée (début du suivi) et à la durée du suivi ont été utilisés pour évaluer l'impact du biais de temps-immortel. Résultats: 4,428 patients ont répondu aux critères d’inclusion pour la MA avec MCEREV; le groupe de patients souffrant seulement de la MA comptait 13,512 individus. Pour le critère d’évaluation composite considérant la durée de la période jusqu’au placement en hebergement ou jusqu’au décès, les taux de survie à 1,000 jours étaient plus faibles parmi les patients atteints de la MA avec MCEREV que parmi ceux atteints seulement de la MA (p<0.01), mais les différences absolues étaient très faibles (84% vs. 86% pour l’utilisation continue de ChEIs ; 77% vs. 78% pour la thérapie avec ChEIs interrompue). Pour les critères d’évaluation secondaires, la période jusqu’au décès était plus courte chez les patients avec la MCEREV que sans la MCEREV, mais la période jusqu’au vi placement en hebergement n’était pas différente entre les deux groupes. Dans l'analyse primaire (non-biaisée), aucune association a été trouvée entre le type de ChEI et la mort ou le placement en maison d'hébergement. Cependant, après l'introduction du biais de temps-immortel, on a observé un fort effet différentiel. Limitations: Les résultats peuvent avoir été affectés par le biais de sélection (classification impropre), par les différences entre les groupes en termes de consommation de tabac et d’indice de masse corporelle (ces informations n’étaient pas disponibles dans les bases de données de la RAMQ) et de durée de la thérapie avec les ChEIs. Conclusions: Les associations entre la coexistence d’une MCEREV et la durée de la période jusqu’au placement en hebergement ou au décès apparaissent peu pertinentes cliniquement parmi les patients atteints de la MA traités avec des ChEIs. L’absence de différence entre les patients atteints de la MA souffrant ou non de la MCEREV suggère que la coexistence d’une MCEREV ne devrait pas être une raison de refuser aux patients atteints de la MA l’accès au traitement avec des ChEIs. Le calcul des « personne-temps » non exposés dans l'analyse élimine les estimations biaisées de l'efficacité des médicaments.Introduction: Dementia may be caused by Alzheimer’s disease (AD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), or a combination of both. When CVD is associated with dementia, survival is thought to be reduced. It is unclear whether treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), which has been found to improve cognitive symptoms and global function in AD patients, has similar benefits in vascular forms of dementia. Objectives: The present study was designed to determine whether co-existing CVD is associated with survival or time to nursing home placement (NHP) among AD patients treated with ChEIs. Findings of poorer outcomes in patients with versus without CVD might argue against the use of ChEIs for AD patients in whom CVD co-exists. The objective of a second analysis was to assess for the first time in patients with AD the potential impact of immortal time (and followup) bias on risk for these outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using the Régie de l’Assurance Maladie du Québec (RAMQ) databases to examine the time to NHP or death for AD patients aged 66+, with or without CVD, treated with ChEIs between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. Because ChEIs are approved only for AD in Canada, a ChEI prescription was used as a surrogate for an AD diagnosis. Concomitant CVD was identified on the basis of a lifetime diagnosis of stroke or ii endarterectomy, or a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack within the six months prior to the index date. Separate analyses were performed for patients with persistent ChEI use and those who discontinued ChEI therapy. Seven Cox proportional hazard regression models which varied in the definition of the index date (start of follow-up) and the duration of follow-up were used to evaluate the impact of immortal time bias. Results: 4,428 patients met inclusion criteria for AD with CVD; 13,512 were classified as having AD alone. For the composite endpoint of NHP or death, 1,000-day survival rates were lower among AD patients with versus without CVD (p<0.01), but absolute differences were very small (84% vs. 86% with continuous ChEI use; 77% vs. 78% with discontinuous ChEI therapy). Of the secondary endpoints, time to death was shorter for patients with versus without CVD, but time to NHP did not differ between groups. In the primary, unbiased analysis, no association was found between ChEI treatment type and death or NHP. However, after introduction of immortal time bias, a strong differential effect was observed. Limitations: Results may have been affected by selection (misclassification) bias, between-group differences in smoking and body mass index (information on which was not available in the RAMQ databases), and duration of ChEI therapy. Conclusions: Associations between co-existing CVD and time to NHP or death appeared to be of little clinical relevance among AD patients treated with ChEIs. iii The lack of difference between AD patients with and without CVD suggests that CVD should not be used as a reason to deny AD patients access to ChEI treatment. Properly accounting for unexposed person-time in the analysis eliminates biased estimates of drug efficacy

Cost-effectiveness Comparison of Ceftazidime/Avibactam Versus Meropenem in the Empirical Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-associated Pneumonia, in Italy

Purpose: Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose combination antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for patients with hospitalacquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). The economic benefits of a new drug such as CAZ-AVI are required to be assessed against those of available comparators, from the perspective of health care providers and payers, through cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of appropriate hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP caused by gram-negative pathogens, from the perspective of publicly funded health care in Italy (third-party perspective, based on the data from the REPROVE (Ceftazidime-Avibactam Versus Meropenem In Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia) clinical study; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808092). Methods: A patient-level, sequential simulation model of the HAP/VAP clinical course was developed using spreadsheet software. The analysis focused on direct medical costs. The time horizon of the model selected was 5 years, with an annual discount rate of 3% on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical inputs for treatment comparisons were mainly obtained from the REPROVE clinical study data. In addition to clinical outcomes observed in the trial, the model incorporated impact of resistance pathogens, based on data from published studies and expert opinion. Certain assumptions were made for some model parameters due to a lack of data. Findings: The analysis demonstrated that the intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) versus the comparator sequence (meropenem followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) provided a better clinical cure rate (+13.52%), which led to a shorter hospital stay (−0.40 days per patient), and gains in the number of life-years (+0.195) and QALYs (+0.350) per patient. The intervention sequence had an estimated net incremental total cost of V1254 ($1401) per patient, and the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was V3581 ($4000) per QALY gained, well below the willingness-topay threshold of V30,000 ($33,507) per QALY in Italy. Implications: The model results showed that CAZAVI is expected to provide clinical benefits in hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP in Italy at an acceptable cost compared to meropenem

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam compared to imipenem as empirical treatment for complicated urinary tract infections

Abstract Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a novel, fixed-dose combination antibiotic that has been approved in Europe and the United States for patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) based on results of a Phase III, randomized, comparative study (RECAPTURE study). The present analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI as an empirical treatment for hospitalized patients with cUTIs from the Italian publicly funded healthcare (third-party payer) perspective. A sequential, patient-level simulation model was developed that followed the clinical course of cUTI and generated 5000 pairs of identical patients (CAZ-AVI or imipenem as empirical treatment). The model included additional impact of resistant pathogens; patients who did not respond to empirical treatment were switched to second-line treatment of colistin+high dose carbapenem in both groups. The time horizon of the model was five years, with an annual discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis demonstrated that an intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) compared with a comparator sequence (imipenem followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) was associated with a net incremental cost of €1015 per patient but provided better health outcomes in terms of clinical cure (97.65% vs. 91.08%; ∆ = 6.57%), shorter hospital stays (10.65 vs. 12.55 days; ∆ = 1.90 days), and QALYs gained per patient (4.190 vs. 4.063; ∆ = 0.126). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €8039/QALY, which is well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY in Italy. The results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to be a cost-effective treatment compared with imipenem for cUTI in Italy

Cost analysis of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis among patients with haematological disorders in Germany and Spain

Background: The current healthcare climate demands pharmacoeconomic evaluations for different treatment strategies incorporating drug acquisition costs, costs incurred for hospitalisation, drug administration and preparation, diagnostic and laboratory testing and drug-related adverse events (AEs). Here we evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B as first-line therapies for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with haematological malignancy and prolonged neutropenia or who were undergoing haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in Germany or Spain. Methods: A decision analytic model based on a decision tree was constructed to estimate the potential treatment costs of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B. Each model pathway was defined by the probability of an event occurring and the costs of clinical outcomes. Outcome probabilities and cost inputs were derived from the published literature, clinical trials, expert panels and local database costs. In the base case, patients who failed to respond to first-line therapy were assumed to experience a single switch between comparator drugs or the other drug was added as second-line treatment. Base-case evaluation included only drug-management costs and additional hospitalisation costs due to severe AEs associated with first-and second-line therapies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Cost estimates were inflated to 2011 euros ((sic)). Results: Based on clinical trial success rates of 52.8% (voriconazole) and 50.0% (liposomal amphotericin B), voriconazole had lower total treatment costs compared with liposomal amphotericin B in both Germany ((sic)12,256 versus (sic)18,133; length of therapy [LOT] = 10-day intravenous [IV] + 5-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B) and Spain ((sic)8,032 versus (sic)10,516; LOT = 7-day IV + 8-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B). Assuming the same efficacy (50.0%) in first-line therapy, voriconazole maintained a lower total treatment cost compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Cost savings were primarily due to the lower drug acquisition costs and shorter IV LOT associated with voriconazole. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to drug price, particularly the cost of liposomal amphotericin B. Conclusions: Voriconazole is likely to be cost-saving compared with liposomal amphotericin B when used as a first-line treatment for IA in Germany and Spain

Antibiotic treatment patterns across Europe in patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections due to meticillin-resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em>:a plea for implementation of early switch and early discharge criteria

AbstractThis retrospective observational medical chart review aimed to describe country-specific variations across Europe in real-world meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) treatment patterns, antibiotic stewardship activity, and potential opportunities for early switch (ES) from intravenous (i.v.) to oral formulations and early discharge (ED) from hospital using standardised data collection and criteria and economic implications of these opportunities. Patients were randomly sampled from 12 countries (Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the UK), aged ≥18 years, with documented MRSA cSSTI, hospitalised between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011, discharged alive by 31 July 2011. Of 1502 patients, 1468 received MRSA-targeted therapy. Intravenous-to-oral switch rates ranged from 2.0% to 20.2%, i.v. length of therapy from 10.1 to 18.6 days and hospital length of stay (LoS) from 15.2 to 25.0 days across Europe. Of 341 sites, 82.9% had antibiotic steering committees, 23.7% had i.v.-to-oral switch antibiotic protocols and 12.9% had ED protocols for MRSA cSSTI. ES and ED eligibility ranged from 12.0% (Slovakia) to 56.3% (Greece) and from 10% (Slovakia) to 48.2% (Portugal), respectively. Potential cost savings per ED-eligible patient ranged from €414 (Slovakia) to €2703 (France). MRSA cSSTI treatment patterns varied widely across countries, but further reductions in i.v. therapy, hospital LoS and associated costs could be realised. These data provide insight into clinical practice patterns across diverse European healthcare systems and identify potential opportunities for local clinicians and policy-makers to improve clinical care and cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic area

Antibiotic research and development: business as usual?

This article contends that poor economic incentives are an important reason for the lack of new drugs and explains how the DRIVE-AB intends to change the landscape by harnessing the expertise, motivation and diversity of its partner

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species

Abstract Background Cost-effectiveness studies of echinocandins for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, including candidemia, are rare in Asia. No study has determined whether echinocandins are cost-effective for both Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species. There have been no economic evaluations that compare non-echinocandins with the three available echinocandins. This study was aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of individual echinocandins, namely caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin, versus non-echinocandins for C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, respectively. Methods A decision tree model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of echinocandins and non-echinocandins for invasive candidiasis. The probability of treatment success, mortality rate, and adverse drug events were extracted from published clinical trials. The cost variables (i.e., drug acquisition) were based on Taiwan’s healthcare system from the perspective of a medical payer. One-way sensitivity analyses and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results For treating invasive candidiasis (all species), as compared to fluconazole, micafungin and caspofungin are dominated (less effective, more expensive), whereas anidulafungin is cost-effective (more effective, more expensive), costing US$3666.09 for each life-year gained, which was below the implicit threshold of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in Taiwan. For C. albicans, echinocandins are cost-saving as compared to non-echinocandins. For non-albicans Candida species, echinocandins are cost-effective as compared to non-echinocandins, costing US$652 for each life-year gained. The results were robust over a wide range of sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the clinical efficacy of antifungal treatment. Conclusions Echinocandins, especially anidulafungin, appear to be cost-effective for invasive candidiasis caused by C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species in Taiwan

La prise en charge du patient présentant une fibrillation auriculaire symptomatique à l’urgence

Selon l’étude de cohorte Framingham, l’incidence et la prévalence de la fibrillation auriculaire (FA) ont augmenté significativement au cours des dernières années. Avec la population vieillissante, il est primordial de s’intéresser à cette arythmie qui touche 10 à 15 % des personnes âgées de 80 ans et plus. Cette arythmie est par le fait même la plus fréquemment rencontrée dans les départements d’urgence et est responsable du tiers des admissions pour arythmie. En réponse aux études cliniques récentes, la Société canadienne de cardiologie (SCC) a mis à jour les lignes directrices quant à la prise en charge de la FA en 2018 et en 2020. Au moyen d’un cas clinique évolutif, cet article mettra en lumière l’évaluation clinique et la prise en charge de la FA symptomatique à l’urgence. De l’évaluation infirmière initiale au triage jusqu’à la prise en charge de la FA symptomatique, cet article vise à outiller les infirmiers et infirmières dans l’identification et la prise en charge de la clientèle affectée par cette arythmie en contexte d’urgence.Objectifs d’apprentissag

Additional file 1: Figure S1. of Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under assumption that length of IV treatment for success and survival is 30 days. Figure S2. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for comparison between echinocandins (anidulafungin as reference). Figure S3. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) based on efficacy data from Reboli et al.’s study [8]. Table S4. Summary of basic information on selected articles in Asia. Table S5. Summary of the results from systemic review and comparison to global data [25–31]. (DOCX 327 kb