Aspirin with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND The effect of single as compared with dual antiplatelet treatment on bleeding and thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) in patients who do not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation has not been well studied. METHODS In a randomized, controlled trial, we assigned a subgroup of patients who were undergoing TAVI and did not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive aspirin alone or aspirin plus clopidogrel for 3 months. The two primary outcomes were all bleeding (including minor, major, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding) and non-procedure-related bleeding over a period of 12 months. Most bleeding at the TAVI puncture site was counted as non-procedure-related. The two secondary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-procedure-related bleeding, stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 1) and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 2) at 1 year, with both outcomes tested sequentially for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superiority. RESULTS A total of 331 patients were assigned to receive aspirin alone and 334 were assigned to receive aspirin plus clopidogrel. A bleeding event occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) receiving aspirin alone and in 89 (26.6%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (risk ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.77; P=0.001). Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) and 83 patients (24.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.83; P=0.005). A secondary composite 1 event occurred in 76 patients (23.0%) receiving aspirin alone and in 104 (31.1%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (difference, −8.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, −14.9 to −1.5; P<0.001; risk ratio, 0.74; 95% CI for superiority, 0.57 to 0.95; P=0.04). A secondary composite 2 event occurred in 32 patients (9.7%) and 33 patients (9.9%), respectively (difference, −0.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, −4.7 to 4.3; P=0.004; risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI for superiority, 0.62 to 1.55; P=0.93). A total of 44 patients (13.3%) and 32 (9.6%), respectively, received oral anticoagulation during the trial. CONCLUSIONS Among patients undergoing TAVI who did not have an indication for oral anticoagulation, the incidence of bleeding and the composite of bleeding or thromboembolic events at 1 year were significantly less frequent with aspirin than with aspirin plus clopidogrel administered for 3 months

Anticoagulation with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND The roles of anticoagulation alone or with an antiplatelet agent after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) have not been well studied. METHODS We performed a randomized trial of clopidogrel in patients undergoing TAVI who were receiving oral anticoagulation for appropriat

Cost-Effectiveness of Venetoclax Plus Obinutuzumab Versus Chlorambucil Plus Obinutuzumab for the First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: An Extended Societal View

Objectives: Efficacy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (VenO) compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (ClbO) for treatment-naïve adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with coexisting medical conditions was investigated in CLL14 (NCT02242942). Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO versus ClbO for these patients from a Dutch societal perspective. Methods: A 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and value of information analysis (VOI). Results: The base case resulted in a discounted ICER −49 928 EUR/QALY gained (with incremental negative costs and positive effects). None of the ICERs resulted from deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses exceeded the chosen willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 000 EUR/QALY, and > 99% of the iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were cost-effective. VOI analyses showed a maximum expected value of eliminating all model parameter uncertainty of 183 591 EUR. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated VenO being dominant over ClbO in treatment-naïve adult patients with CLL assuming a Dutch societal perspective. We concluded that our results are robust as tested through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Additionally, the VOI analyses confirmed that our current evidence base is strong enough to generate reliable results for our study. Nevertheless, further research based on real-world data or longer follow-up period could further contribute to the robustness of the current study's conclusions

Towards sustainability and affordability of expensive cell and gene therapies? Applying a cost-based pricing model to estimate prices for Libmeldy and Zolgensma

Background aims: Drug prices are regarded as one of the most influential factors in determining accessibility and affordability to novel therapies. Cell and gene therapies such as OTL-200 (brand name: Libmeldy) and AVXS-101 (brand name: Zolgensma) with (expected) list prices of 3.0 million EUR and 1.9 million EUR per treatment, respectively, spark a global debate on the affordability of such therapies. The aim of this study was to use a recently published cost-based pricing model to calculate prices for cell and gene therapies, with OTL-200 and AVXS-101 as case study examples. Methods: Using the pricing model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg, we estimated a price for both therapies. We searched the literature and online public sources to estimate (i) research and development (R&D) expenses adjusted for risk of failure and cost of capital, (ii) the eligible patient population and (iii) costs of drug manufacturing to calculate a base-case price for OTL-200 and AVXS-101. All model input parameters were varied in a stepwise, deterministic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses to assess their impact on the calculated prices. Results: Prices for OTL-200 and AVXS-101 were estimated at 1 048 138 EUR and 380 444 EUR per treatment, respectively. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, varying R&D estimates had the greatest impact on the price for OTL-200, whereas for AVXS-101, changes in the profit margin changed the calculated price substantially. Highest prices in scenario analyses were achieved when assuming the lowest number of patients for OTL-200 and highest R&D expenses for AVXS-101. The lowest R&D expenses scenario resulted in lowest prices for either therapy. Conclusions: Our results show that, using the proposed model, prices for both OTL-200 and AVXS-101 lie substantially below the currently (proposed) list prices for both therapies. Nevertheless, the uncertainty of the used model input parameters is considerable, which translates in a wide range of estimated prices. This is mainly because of a lack of transparency from pharmaceutical companies regarding R&D expenses and the costs of drug manufacturing. Simultaneously, the disease indications for both therapies remain heavily understudied in terms of their epidemiological profile. Despite the considerable variation in the estimated prices, our results may support the public debate on value-based and cost-based pricing models, and on “fair” drug prices in general

Kostprijs-plusmodel geeft inzicht in reële prijzen gentherapieën

Goed nieuws voor patiënten met de zeldzame erfelijke spierziekte spinale musculaire atrofie (SMA) en de zeldzame erfelijke stofwisselingsziekte metachromatische leukodystrofie (MLD). Sinds kort zijn de veelbelovende gentherapieën Zolgensma en Libmeldy toegelaten tot de Europese markt. Maar de prijzen van deze behandelingen zijn fors hoger dan van bestaande therapieën voor deze indicaties, terwijl effectiviteit op lange termijn nog niet altijd duidelijk is

Zolgensma and Libmeldy prices are considerably higher than existing therapies:Cost-plus price model provides insight into real prices of gene therapies

Goed nieuws voor patiënten met de zeldzame erfelijke spierziekte spinale musculaire atrofie (SMA) en de zeldzame erfelijke stofwisselingsziekte metachromatische leukodystrofie (MLD). Sinds kort zijn de veelbelovende gentherapieën Zolgensma en Libmeldy toegelaten tot de Europese markt. Maar de prijzen van deze behandelingen zijn fors hoger dan van bestaande therapieën voor deze indicaties, terwijl effectiviteit op lange termijn nog niet altijd duidelijk is

Policy evaluation and behavioral economics

Empirical policy evaluation is necessary to answer the question: what is a good policy? To answer this question, this chapter will review the management of policy evaluation and cover key performance indicators for evaluation, such as efficiency and fidelity. On the basis of these indicators, common frameworks for policy evaluation are explained. Some of the challenges in conducting policy evaluation, though, are the complex and variable aspects of all policies, as well as their context-specific antecedents and outcomes. This makes comparison between policies very challenging, if not impossible; hence, we close with an example of strategies for standardizing the evaluation of policies across domains and approaches. Ultimately, the purpose of this chapter is to identify not only what comprises a strong policy but also how to produce effective policies that maximize the number of people reached and impacted.</p

Zolgensma and Libmeldy prices are considerably higher than existing therapies:Cost-plus price model provides insight into real prices of gene therapies

Goed nieuws voor patiënten met de zeldzame erfelijke spierziekte spinale musculaire atrofie (SMA) en de zeldzame erfelijke stofwisselingsziekte metachromatische leukodystrofie (MLD). Sinds kort zijn de veelbelovende gentherapieën Zolgensma en Libmeldy toegelaten tot de Europese markt. Maar de prijzen van deze behandelingen zijn fors hoger dan van bestaande therapieën voor deze indicaties, terwijl effectiviteit op lange termijn nog niet altijd duidelijk is