The biological basis for male contraception was established decades ago, but despite promising breakthroughs and the financial burden men increasingly bear due to better enforcement of child support policies, no viable alternative to the condom has been brought to market. Men who wish to control their fertility must rely on female compliance with contraceptives, barrier methods, vasectomy or abstinence. Over the last 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has abandoned most of its investment in the field, leaving only nonprofit organisations and public entities pursuing male contraception. Leading explanations are uncertain forecasts of market demand pitted against the need for critical investments to demonstrate the safety of existing candidate products. This paper explores the developments and challenges in male contraception research. We produce preliminary estimates of potential market size for a safe and effective male contraceptive based on available data to estimate the potential market for a novel male method.

No abstract

Aim:A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted to determine the relative efficacy and safety of interventions for treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients, as comparative evidence is scarce. Materials & methods: Relative treatment effects of progression-free survival, overall survival and safety outcomes were estimated via network meta-analysis based on data identified via systematic literature review. Results: Ibrutinib was superior in all pairwise comparisons for progressionfree survival (probability to be better [P] range: overall population: 69-100%; fludarabine-ineligible population: 69-100%) and overall survival (P range: overall: 89-100%; fludarabine-ineligible: 91-100%) and had the highest probability of being best for all outcomes. Conclusion: Ibrutinib provides superior benefit in survival and safety compared with other front-line treatments of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common hematologic malignancy in western countries and occurs mainly in older people. Overall, 4.2 per 100,000 population per year develop the condition, a figure that rises to over 30 per 100,000 per year among those aged over 80 years [1]. The overall 5-year survival rate for people with CLL is 83%, although survival varies widely according to disease stage [2]. Treatment for CLL has evolved rapidly over the past two decades, with the addition of CD20-targeted antibodies, B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2)-targeted treatment and B-cell receptor-targeted treatment resulting in improved outcomes [3][4].As indicated by both the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [1,5], there are various management options for CLL, and treatment choices must account for key patient and disease characteristics known to affect therapeutic outcomes. These include patient age [6], fitness/comorbidities [7] and molecular cytogenetics [6,8]. Generally, for fit patients with advanced, symptomatic disease, the so-called 'full-dose fludarabine-based' regimen of fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab (FCR) is recommended [1]. However, for elderly patients and/or those with significant comorbidities, FCR is associated with significant risk of myelosuppression and severe infection [9]. Options are further limited if these individuals also have cytogenetic characteristics associated with poor outcomes from current treatments (such as 17p or 11q deletion, or absence of IgVH mutation). For these patients, ESMO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend ibrutinib monotherapy [1,5,9].Given the range of CLL treatment options for people with differing levels of fitness, and the dearth of head-tohead clinical trials comparing front-line treatments, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the optimal regimen for each patient group. The objectives of the presented systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were therefore to determine the relative efficacy and safety of intervention...

The acquisition costs of DMF for treatment of RRMS are predicted to be partially offset by reduced costs of relapses in the Canadian healthcare system.

Novel male contraceptives could play a meaningful role in averting unintended pregnancies in a variety of contexts. The potential impact is especially great in settings where current use of contraception is low and if novel methods can attract new contraceptive users.

No abstract

IntroductionData from the SINGLE trial demonstrated that 88% of treatment-naive HIV-1 patients treated with dolutegravir and abacavir/lamivudine (DTG+ABC/3TC) achieved viral suppression at 48 weeks compared with 81% of patients treated with efavirenz/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EFV/TDF/FTC). It is unclear how this difference in short-term efficacy impacts long-term cost-effectiveness of these regimens. This study sought to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of DTG+ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC from a US payer perspective.Materials and MethodsAn individual discrete-event simulation model tracked the disease status and treatment pathway of HIV-1 patients. The model simulated treatment over a lifetime horizon by tracking change in patients’ CD4 count, occurrence of clinical events (opportunistic infections, cancer and cardiovascular events), treatment switch and death. The model included up to four lines of treatment. Baseline patient characteristics, efficacy and safety of DTG+ABC/3TC and EFV/TDF/FTC were informed by data from the SINGLE trial. The efficacy of subsequent lines of treatment, clinical event risks, mortality, cost and utility inputs were based on literature and expert opinion. Outcomes were lifetime medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (both discounted at 3% per annum) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsCompared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG+ABC/3TC increased lifetime costs by $58,188 and per-person survival by 0.12 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $482,717/QALY. In sensitivity analyses testing conservative assumptions about EFV/TDF/FTC's efficacy beyond the trial period, ICERs comparing DTG+ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC remained high (lowest reported ICER of $365,662/QALY). In a scenario in which the price of EFV/TDF/FTC was reduced by 10% to reflect the potential for price reduction as EFV goes off patent, DTG+ABC/3TC's ICER compared to EFV/TDF/FTC was $600,916/QALY. When DTG+ABC/3TC's price was reduced by 10%, the resulting ICER comparing DTG+ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC was $302,171/QALY.ConclusionsCompared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG+ABC/3TC resulted in substantially higher cost, slightly better QALY over lifetime, and ICERs far exceeding standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, indicating that the incremental benefit in efficacy associated with DTG+ABC/3TC may not be worth the incremental increase in costs.

lowest vs highest; HR 1.12, 95%CI 1.07-1.16), grade (high vs low, HR 1.72, 95%CI 1.63-1.82), tumour size (2-5 cm vs 1-2 cm; HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.40-1.51), and a higher number of positive lymph nodes (1-3 vs 0; HR 1.40, 95%CI 1.34-1.46 and > 10 vs 0; HR 3.19, 95%CI 3.00-3.39) influenced death, all to a larger extent than surgical volume did. ConClusions: In the Netherlands, surgical hospital volume influences 10-year overall survival only marginally, and far less than patient and tumour characteristics. No difference in survival was revealed for invasive non-metastatic breast cancer patients in hospitals with 75-99 operations per year compared with hospitals with over 200 operations per year.