Budget impact analysis of dexamethasone intravitreal implant for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema

Objetivo: determinar el impacto económico tras la inclusión del implante intravítreo de dexametasona para el tratamiento del edema macular diabético en un área sanitaria en España. Método: se diseñó un modelo de impacto presupuestario a tres años para estimar los costes directos en pacientes adultos con edema macular diabético, desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud, considerando terapias intravítreas actualmente utilizadas (aflibercept/ ranibizumab/dexametasona). La población diana se obtuvo a partir de la prevalencia (6,41%) e incidencia (0,82%) del edema macular diabético publicadas para una población de 25.000 pacientes adultos. Se asumió un 20%, 30% y 40% anual de pacientes tratados con dexametasona, respectivamente. El coste total incluyó: coste farmacológico (precio de venta del laboratorio con deducción obligatoria y fraccionamiento de viales, según frecuencia de inyecciones necesarias cada año de tratamiento), administración intravítrea, seguimiento de pacientes y manejo de eventos oculares (cataratas, hipertensión ocular, endoftalmitis, hemorragia intravítrea y desprendimiento de retina) y cardiovasculares. El consumo de recursos según la práctica habitual fue estimado por expertos en retina y vítreo. Los costes unitarios ( , 2016) se obtuvieron de la literatura y de bases de datos nacionales. Los análisis de sensibilidad evaluaron la robustez del modelo. Resultados: la inclusión del implante intravítreo de dexametasona supondría reducciones de 35.030 (-4,2%), 10.743 (-1,8%) y 5.051 (-0,9%) cada año, respectivamente, disminuyendo principalmente por el menor número anual de inyecciones requeridas con dexametasona. La reducción anual promedio supondría 350 , 96 y 41 por paciente. Conclusiones: la inclusión del implante intravítreo de dexametasona para el tratamiento del edema macular diabético supone ahorros para el área sanitaria considerada, fundamentalmente por la reducción de costes de administración

Cost-effectiveness analysis of using innovative therapies for the management of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in Spain

Background: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib in comparison to vedolizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) after failure or intolerance to conventional therapy (bio-naive) or first-line biologic treatment (bio-experienced), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model with eight-week cycles was developed including five health states: remission, response, active UC, remission after surgery, and death. Response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance periods) were obtained from a multinomial network meta-analysis. Drug acquisition – biosimilar prices included – (ex-factory price with mandatory deductions), adminis- tration, surgery, patient management, and adverse event management costs (€, year 2019) were considered. A 3% discount rate (cost/outcomes) was applied. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Tofacitinib was dominant versus vedolizumab (both in bio-naive and bio-experienced patients) entailing total cost savings of €23,816 (bio-naïve) and €11,438 (bio-experienced). Differences in quality- adjusted life-year (QALY) were smaller than 0.1 for both populations. PSA results showed that tofacitinib has a high probability of being cost-effective (bio-naïve: 82.5%; bio-experienced: 90.6%) versus vedolizumab. Conclusions: From the Spanish NHS perspective, tofacitinib could be a dominant treatment (less costly and more effective) in comparison to vedolizumab, with relevant cost savings and similar QALY gains

A Multiple Stakeholder Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Diabetic Macular Edema Management: The MULTIDEX‑EMD Study

Background The clinical and economic management of retinal diseases has become more complex following the introduction of new intravitreal treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers the potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional decision-making tools. Objectives A MCDA to determine the most relevant criteria to decision-making in the management of diabetic macular edema (DME) based on the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in Spain was developed. This MCDA was termed the MULTIDEX-EMD study. Methods Nineteen stakeholders (7 physicians, 4 pharmacists, 5 health authorities and health management experts, 1 psychologist, and 2 patient representatives) participated in this three-phase project. In phase A, an advisory board defined all of the criteria that could influence DME treatment decision-making. These criteria were then screened using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) (phase B). Next, a multinomial logit model was fitted by applying the backward elimination algorithm (relevant criteria: p value = 15 letters (p value < 0.001), effect duration per administration (p value = 0.008), retinal detachment (p value < 0.001), endophthalmitis (p value = 0.012), myocardial infarction (p value < 0.001), intravitreal hemorrhage (p value = 0.021), annual treatment cost per patient (p value = 0.001), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (p value = 0.004), and disability level (p value = 0.021). Conclusions From a multi-stakeholder perspective, the selection of an appropriate treatment for DME patients should guarantee patient safety and maximize the visual acuity improvement and treatment effect duration. It should also contribute to system sustainability by being affordable, it should have a positive impact on HRQoL, and it should prevent disability

Major bleeding predictors in patients with left atrial appendage closure: The iberian registry II

Introduction and objective: Major bleeding events in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) range from 2.2 to 10.3 per 100 patient-years in di erent series. This study aimed to clarify the bleeding predictive factors that could influence these di erences. Methods: LAAC was performed in 598 patients from the Iberian Registry II (1093 patient-years; median, 75.4 years). We conducted a multivariate analysis to identify predictive risk factors for major bleeding events. The occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events was compared to rates expected from CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke history, vascular disease, sex) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal and liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile INR, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores. Results: Cox regression analysis revealed that age 75 years (HR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3 to 4.8; p = 0.004) and a history of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) (HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.9; p = 0.020) were two factors independently associated with major bleeding during follow-up. Patients aged <75 or 75 years had median CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 4 (IQR: 2) and 5 (IQR: 2), respectively (p < 0.001) and HAS-BLED scores were 3 (IQR: 1) and 3 (IQR: 1) for each group (p = 0.007). Events presented as follow-up adjusted rates according to age groups were stroke (1.2% vs. 2.9%; HR: 2.4, p = 0.12) and major bleeding (3.7 vs. 9.0 per 100 patient-years; HR: 2.4, p = 0.002). Expected major bleedings according to HAS-BLED scores were 6.2% vs. 6.6%, respectively. In patients with GIB history, major bleeding events were 6.1% patient-years (HAS-BLED score was 3.8 1.1) compared to 2.7% patients-year in patients with no previous GIB history (HAS-BLED score was 3.4 1.2; p = 0.029). Conclusions: In this high-risk population, GIB history and age 75 years are the main predictors of major bleeding events after LAAC, especially during the first year. Age seems to have a greater influence on major bleeding events than on thromboembolic risk in these patient

A multiple stakeholder multicriteria decision analysis in diabetic macular edema management: the MULTIDEX‑EMD study

Background The clinical and economic management of retinal diseases has become more complex following the introduction of new intravitreal treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) ofers the potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional decision-making tools. Objectives A MCDA to determine the most relevant criteria to decision-making in the management of diabetic macular edema (DME) based on the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in Spain was developed. This MCDA was termed the MULTIDEX-EMD study. Methods Nineteen stakeholders (7 physicians, 4 pharmacists, 5 health authorities and health management experts, 1 psychologist, and 2 patient representatives) participated in this three-phase project. In phase A, an advisory board defned all of the criteria that could infuence DME treatment decision-making. These criteria were then screened using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) (phase B). Next, a multinomial logit model was ftted by applying the backward elimination algorithm (relevant criteria: p value<0.05). Finally, the results were discussed in a deliberative process (phase C). Results Thirty-one criteria were initially defned (phase A) and grouped into 5 categories: efcacy/efectiveness, safety, organizational and economic impact, patient-reported outcomes, and other therapeutic features. The DCE results (phase B) showed that 10 criteria were relevant to the decision-making process for a 50- to 65-year-old DME patient: mean change in best corrected visual acuity (p value<0.001), percentage of patients with an improvement of ≥15 letters (p value<0.001), efect duration per administration (p value=0.008), retinal detachment (p value<0.001), endophthalmitis (p value=0.012), myocardial infarction (p value<0.001), intravitreal hemorrhage (p value=0.021), annual treatment cost per patient (p value=0.001), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (p value=0.004), and disability level (p value=0.021). Conclusions From a multi-stakeholder perspective, the selection of an appropriate treatment for DME patients should guarantee patient safety and maximize the visual acuity improvement and treatment efect duration. It should also contribute to system sustainability by being afordable, it should have a positive impact on HRQoL, and it should prevent disability

Informe final del escaneo de horizonte sobre futuras especies exóticas invasoras en España

73 p.La introducción de especies exóticas invasoras (EEI) es una de las principales causas de la pérdida de biodiversidad a nivel global, que provoca grandes costes socioeconómicos. Sin embargo, el número de nuevas introducciones continúa creciendo año tras año. Por lo tanto, urge identificar posibles futuras EEI con el objetivo de diseñar e implementar medidas que prevengan y mitiguen los efectos negativos de su introducción. Así, el objetivo de este estudio es prospectar qué especies exóticas no establecidas en España podrían llegar fácilmente en los próximos 10 años, establecerse y causar importantes impactos ecológicos. Para ello, se ha realizado un escaneo de horizonte, siguiendo la metodología establecida en trabajos previos, siendo el primero para el conjunto de las especies exóticas invasoras en España. Se añadieron en el análisis especies que no son autóctonas de España, incluyendo los archipiélagos de Canarias y Baleares, y que no están establecidas en España. Un total de 39 científicos, expertos en distintos grupos taxonómicos y ecosistemas, ha evaluado 933 especies. Con el objetivo de analizar el acuerdo entre las evaluaciones individuales de los expertos y su consistencia, se llevaron a cabo dos análisis de fiabilidad complementarios, cuyos resultados se discuten en este informe. Como resultado del escaneo, se obtuvo una lista priorizada de 105 especies (46 con riesgo muy alto y 59 con riesgo alto). La mayoría de estas especies (84,8%), sin embargo, no están incluidas actualmente en el Catálogo Español de Especies Exóticas Invasoras. Por lo tanto, se recomienda la realización de un análisis de riesgo más detallado de estas especies y, si se confirma el riesgo alto, la solicitud de su incorporación en dicho catálogo o en el Listado de especies alóctonas susceptibles de competir con las especies silvestres autóctonas, alterar su pureza genética o los equilibrios ecológicos. Del mismo modo, se propone la realización de escaneos de horizonte específicos para los archipiélagos de Canarias y Baleares, ya que muchas de las especies autóctonas de la Península no lo son de las islas y podrían tener un gran impacto si allí se introdujeran. Este informe también analiza la afinidad taxonómica (i.e. filo) y funcional (i.e. productor primario, depredador, omnívoro, herbívoro o filtrador) de las especies de la lista priorizada, su origen geográfico y las principales vías de introducción. Por último, discute los mecanismos de impacto de dichas especies.Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovació

A multi-stakeholder multicriteria decision analysis for the reimbursement of orphan drugs (FinMHU-MCDA study)

Background: Patient access to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is limited and varies between countries, reim‑bursement decisions on OMPs are complex, and there is a need for more transparent processes to know which criteria should be considered to inform these decisions. This study aimed to determine the most relevant criteria for the reim‑ bursement of OMPs in Spain, from a multi-stakeholder perspective, and using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Methods: An MCDA was developed in 3 phases and included 28 stakeholders closely related to the feld of rare diseases (6 hysicians, 5 hospital pharmacists, 7 health economists, 4 patient representatives and 6 members from national and regional health authorities). Initially [phase A], a bibliographic review was conducted to identify the potential reimbursement criteria. Then, a reduced advisory board (8 members) proposed, selected, and defned the fnal list of criteria that could be relevant for reimbursement. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) [phase B] was developed to determine the relevance and relative importance weight of such criteria according to the stakeholders’ preferences by choosing between pairs of hypothetical fnancing scenarios. A multinomial logit model was ftted to analyze the DCE responses. Finally [phase C], the advisory board review the results using a deliberative process.Results: Thirteen criteria were selected, related to 4 dimensions: patient population, disease, treatment, and eco‑nomic evaluation. Nine criteria were deemed relevant for decision-making and associated with a higher relative importance: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) (23.53%), treatment efcacy (14.64%), vailability of treatment alter‑natives (13.51%), disease severity (12.62%), avoided costs (11.21%), age of target population (7.75%),safety (serious‑ness of adverse events) (4.72%), quality of evidence (3.82%) and size of target population (3.12%). The remaining crite‑ria had a<3% relative importance: economic burden of disease (2.50%), cost of treatment (1.73%), cost-efectiveness (0.83%) and safety (frequency of adverse events) (0.03%).Conclusion: The reimbursement of OMPs in Spain should be determined by its efect on patient’s HRQL, the extent of its therapeutic beneft from efcacy and the availability of other therapeutic options. Furthermore, the severity of the rare disease should also infuence the decision along with the potential of the treatment to avoid associated costs.This project was carried out with an unrestricted grant from AELMHU (Aso‑ciación Española de Laboratorios de Medicamentos Huérfanos y Ultrahuér‑fanos). AELMHU was not involved in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and writing the manuscriptYe