Economic evaluation of rituximab in addition to standard of care chemotherapy for adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

<p><b>Aims:</b> Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is an aggressive form of leukemia with a poor prognosis in adult patients. The addition of the monoclonal antibody rituximab to standard chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival in adults with ALL. However, it is unknown whether the addition of rituximab is cost-effective. The objective was to determine the economic impact of rituximab in addition to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy vs SOC alone in newly-diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-negative, CD20-positive, B-cell precursor ALL.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> A decision analytic model was constructed, based upon the Canadian healthcare system. It included the following health states over a lifetime horizon (max ≈60 years): event-free survival (EFS), relapsed/resistant disease, cure, and death. SOC was either hyper-CVAD or the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) ALL consortium. EFS, overall survival, and serious adverse event (SAE) rates were derived from a large randomized controlled trial. Costs of the model included: first-line treatment and administration, disease management, second-line and third-line treatment and administration, palliative care, and SAE-related treatments. Inputs were sourced from provincial and national public data, the literature, and cancer agency input.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by 2.20 QALYs with rituximab in addition to SOC. The resulting mean Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was C$21,828/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$100,000/QALY, the probability of being cost-effective was 98%. Decision outcomes were robust to the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, including the SOC backbone as either hyper-CVAD or DFCI.</p> <p><b>Limitations:</b> The results of this analysis are limited by generalizability of the chemotherapy backbone to Canadian practice.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> For adults with ALL, rituximab in addition to SOC was found to be a cost-effective intervention, compared to SOC alone. The addition of rituximab is associated with increased life years and increased QALYs at a reasonable incremental cost.</p

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group