Creativ-Ceutical (France)

Purpose: The value of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization procedures is incompletely understood. Moreover, data on long-term clinical outcomes and costs are limited. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between IVUS and contrast angiography alone in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization procedures in Japan. Materials and Methods: This retrospective comparative analysis was performed using the Japanese Medical Data Vision insurance claims database. All patients undergoing revascularization for peripheral artery disease (PAD) between April 2009 and July 2019 were included. Patients were followed until July 2020, death, or a subsequent revascularization procedure for PAD. Two patient groups were compared: one undergoing IVUS imaging or the other contrast angiography alone. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and limb events, including all-cause-mortality, endovascular thrombolysis, subsequent revascularization procedures for PAD, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and major amputations. Total health care costs were documented over the follow-up and compared between groups, using a bootstrap method. Results: The study included 3956 patients in the IVUS group and 5889 in the angiography alone group. Intravascular ultrasound was significantly associated with reduced risk of a subsequent revascularization procedure (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.25 [0.22–0.28]) and major adverse cardiac and limb events (0.69 [0.65–0.73]). The total costs were significantly lower in the IVUS group, with a mean cost saving over follow-up of $18 173 [$7 695–$28 595] per patient. Conclusion: The use of IVUS during peripheral revascularization provides superior long-term clinical outcomes at lower costs compared with contrast angiography alone, warranting wider adoption and fewer barriers to IVUS reimbursement for patients with PAD undergoing routine revascularization. Clinical Impact Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance during peripheral vascular revascularization has been introduced to improve the precision of the procedure. However, questions over the benefit of IVUS in terms of long-term clinical outcome and over cost have limited its use in everyday clinical practice. This study, performed in a Japanese health insurance claims database, demonstrates that use of IVUS provides a superior clinical outcome over the long term at a lower cost compared to angiography alone. These findings should encourage clinicians to use IVUS in routine peripheral vascular revascularization procedures and encourage providers to reduce barriers to use.

ABSTRACT Background The economic consequences of the recent COVID-19 pandemic were substantial. However, direct medical costs in France have not been determined. Objective To describe patient characteristics, intensity of care, mortality, and direct medical costs in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 infections in France. Study design A retrospective study of the French national hospital claims database for 2020. Setting Hospital care. Patients or other participants All patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in 2020 were included and classified by hospitalisation duration into acute phase and prolonged COVID-19. Intervention Stratification by intensity of care (Level 1: no or low-flow oxygen support; Level 2: non-invasive ventilation; Level 3: mechanical ventilation). Main outcome measure Cost of hospital care in 2020 Euros from a payer perspective. Results 199,455 patients were hospitalised for COVID-19 in France in 2020. 17,824 patients (8.9%) received mechanical ventilation and 32,602 patients (16.3%) died. Mean per patient cost was €5,510 ± 7,142. This cost was highest in patients receiving Level 3 care, patients aged >80 years and in those with prolonged COVID. Conclusion The economic burden of hospitalisations for COVID-19 infections in France during 2020 was substantial. The study provides robust baseline data to benchmark advances in the standard of care and to nurture epidemiological models.

Background Asthma is a common, chronic inflammatory airway disorder, with up to 1,177,000 people receiving asthma treatment in Japan. Dupilumab is a first-in-class, monoclonal antibody for the treatment of atopic diseases, including persistent asthma. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab, compared with other biologics, as add-on treatment to background therapy in patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled, persistent asthma in Japan. Methods A life-time Markov cohort model was used to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis from the Japanese healthcare payer perspective with an annual discount rate of 2%. Dupilumab was compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab, and against omalizumab (as a hypothetical scenario). Inputs were informed by dupilumab clinical trials (VENTURE [NCT02528214] and QUEST [NCT02414854] trials), the literature, official Japanese sources and expert opinions. Results The base case results suggest that treatment with dupilumab leads to fewer severe exacerbations and increased life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) than benralizumab and mepolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 per QALY gained, dupilumab was the dominant strategy (lower cost, increased QALYs) versus benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥1,010,921 (US$9,190, US$1 = ¥110). Versus omalizumab, dupilumab was not cost-effective (ICER of ¥10,802,368 [US$98,203]). Conclusions In Japan, dupilumab, as an add-on to background therapy, is economically dominant compared with benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab.

Background Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at substantial risk of atherothrombotic events. The COMPASS trial showed that patients with stable CAD or PAD experienced significant benefits after treatment with rivaroxaban in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. This paper aims to provide insight into the clinical and economic consequences of treatment with rivaroxaban from a Dutch societal perspective. Methods The clinical and economic implications of rivaroxaban in terms of the number of events prevented, costs, the incremental cost per life-years gained (LYG), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined based on a cost-effectiveness model for patients with stable CAD or PAD and in high-risk subgroups (i.e. patients with CAD and PAD, CAD and prior myocardial infarction and renal impairment, CAD and heart failure) using results from the Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. Results Patients treated with rivaroxaban have an expected increased discounted life expectancy of 0.67 years. In high-risk groups discounted incremental life expectancy ranged from 1.33 to 1.90 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the full COMPASS population was €9,760/LYG and €12,033/QALY, whereas, for high-risk subgroups of patients with underlying conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from €2,966/LYG to €5,052/LYG and from €3,940/QALY to €6,815/QALY. Results from the sensitivity analyses revealed that the model results were robust to variations in single or multiple input parameters at once. Conclusions The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that rivaroxaban in combination with ASA is a cost-effective treatment option in stable CAD or PAD patients. Rivaroxaban in combination with ASA is even more cost-effective in high-risk subgroups.

Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is the first cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor being studied for the treatment of influenza in single oral dosing regimen. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the efficacy and safety of baloxavir compared to other antivirals for influenza in otherwise healthy patients. A systematic literature review was performed on 14 November 2016 in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI to identify randomized controlled trials assessing antivirals for influenza. A NMA including 22 trials was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other antivirals. The time to alleviation of all symptoms was significantly shorter for baloxavir compared to zanamivir (difference in median time 19.96 h; 95% CrI [3.23, 39.07]). The time to cessation of viral shedding was significantly shorter for baloxavir than zanamivir and oseltamivir (47.00 h; 95% CrI [28.18, 73.86] and 56.03 h [33.74, 87.86], respectively). The mean decline in virus titer from baseline to 24 h was significantly greater for baloxavir than for the other drugs. Other differences in efficacy outcomes were not significant. No significant differences were found between baloxavir and the other antivirals for safety, except total drug-related adverse events where baloxavir demonstrated a decrease compared to oseltamivir and laninamivir. The NMA suggests that baloxavir demonstrated better or similar efficacy results compared to other antivirals with a comparable safety profile. Baloxavir led to a significant decrease in viral titer versus zanamivir, oseltamivir and peramivir and decreased viral shedding versus zanamivir and oseltamivir.