POM-d may be a cost-effective treatment option relative to DARA or CAR in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM in the US.

The growing number of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and the high acquisition costs of these DMTs are likely to increase the demand for information on their cost effectiveness. To improve the comparability and applicability of the findings from future cost-effectiveness analyses, it would be useful to have a clear understanding of the methodological challenges of modelling the cost effectiveness of DMTs in MS and the different approaches taken by such studies to date. In contrast to previous review studies, this review focuses on long-term time horizon (≥10 years) simulation-based cost-effectiveness analyses with homogeneous contexts of analysis (i.e. those with similar study objectives, comparators, and target populations) published over the past decade. By doing so, it provides a clearer picture of how modelling approaches taken in the existing studies truly differ across studies, and reveals major areas for improvement in conducting future cost-effectiveness analyses of DMTs for patients with MS.

Background:Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy is efficacious and generally safe for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) homozygous for the F508del-CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) mutation. However, long-term survival benefits of lumacaftor/ivacaftor (LUM/IVA) cannot yet be quantified. Simulation models can provide predictions about long-term health outcomes. In this study, we aimed to project long-term health outcomes of LUM/IVA plus standard care (SC) in patients with CF homozygous for F508del-CFTR.Methods:This modeling study was an individual patient simulation in US patients aged ⩾6 years with CF, homozygous for F508del-CFTR. The primary outcome was projected survival among (a) a cohort of patients who ever initiated LUM/IVA, accounting for treatment discontinuations, and (b) a cohort of patients who remain on continuous LUM/IVA. Patient characteristics and model parameters were derived from clinical trials: VX14-809-109, VX13-809-011B, TRAFFIC/TRANSPORT, and PROGRESS; published literature; and the US CF Foundation Patient Registry.Results:Lumacaftor/ivacaftor + SC is expected to increase median survival by 6.1 years versus SC alone, accounting for treatment discontinuations. The incremental median predicted survival versus SC assuming initiation of LUM/IVA at ages 6, 12, 18, and 25 years was 17.7, 12.6, 8.0, and 3.8 years, respectively. Assuming lifetime treatment with LUM/IVA, incremental median survival was predicted to be 7.8 years longer in the LUM/IVA + SC cohort. Initiating LUM/IVA at ages 6, 12, 18, and 25 years and assuming lifetime treatment resulted in incremental median predicted survival of 23.4, 18.2, 11.0, and 4.8 years, respectively.Conclusions:Lumacaftor/ivacaftor is projected to increase survival for patients with CF. Initiation at an early age and treatment persistence result in further increments in projected survival.

The choice of antibiotic and location of care influence the costs and resource use associated with the management of ABSSSIs. The DES framework presented here can provide insight into the potential economic implications of decisions that modify the treatment pathway.

Rd was expected to result in greater LYs and QALYs compared with VMP, with similar overall costs per LY for each regimen. Results of this analysis indicated that Rd may be a cost-effective alternative to VMP as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with MM, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well within the levels for recent advancements in oncology.