Background: Despite of increasing prevalence of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs), uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (uUTIs) are usually treated with antibiotics. Canephron® N, a herbal medicinal product, was now investigated for safety and efficacy in women suffering from uUTI. Methods:In an open-label, non-randomized, multicentre clinical trial 125 Caucasian female patients suffering from uUTI with a sum score of at least 6 for the symptoms dysuria, frequency and urgency (each rated 0-4) were enrolled. Patients were treated with 3x2 tablets Canephron® N for seven days. Symptom assessment was performed by the patient on a daily basis and by the investigator at Day 0, Day 7, Day 37. Primary endpoint was the incidence of ADRs during the treatment. Secondary endpoints were clinical cure (none of the main symptoms scored as worse than mild ("1")) on Day 7, severity of uUTI symptoms on Day 7 and Day 37, patients requiring antibiotic treatment until Day 7, duration of uUTI symptoms and patients with early recurrence. Changes in safety data (dipstick analysis of urine; analysis of blood and urine in a central laboratory) were analysed descriptively. Further post hoc analyses were performed. Results: None of 19 adverse events within the study period was considered as drug-related or serious. The responder rate was 71.2 % on Day 7 and 85.6 % on Day 37 (FAS, N = 125) with a significant improvement of all symptoms (all: p < 0.001). Only 2.4 % of patients required antibiotics during the treatment period and none of the patients met the definition of recurrence until Day 37. The mean changes of the main symptoms on Day 7 and Day 37 compared to Day 0 were: −1.9/-2.3 (dysuria); −1.8/-2.4 (frequency); −1.6/-1.9 (urgency). Symptomatic improvement was accompanied by decreased nitrite, leukocytes as well as erythrocyte levels from Day 0 to Day 7 and Day 37.

Objective: comparative assessment of the economic effect of oral vinorelbine when used as indicated, taking into consideration the new registered price.Material and methods. A clinical-economic study was performed to compare active platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens of the first line for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer with oral vinorelbine and pemetrexed as well as first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer presented with oral vinorelbine and ixabepilone alone. A systematic search for information in medical databases was carried out, the cost estimate was made out in accordance with the recommendations of The Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. The direct medical costs were estimated, formed on the basis of the dosage, frequency and dosage regimen of the compared drugs, based on the data of the State Register of maximum selling prices, clinical guidelines for the studied nosologies, and instructions for medical use. The comparison of the economic effect of the studied drugs was carried out in pairs using the cost minimization method with a sensitivity analysis. Further, the calculations of the amounts of reimbursement of medical care provided were made using each of the compared drugs. An economic assessment of the economic effect of oral vinorelbine was carried out taking into consideration the change in the price of the drug and a budget impact analysis with a sensitivity analysis.Results. It was determined that the use of oral vinorelbine provides financial savings for a medical organization at the amount of 246,042.34 rubles per 6 cycles of chemotherapy for each patient with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer compared with the use of pemetrexed, and 558,659.32 rubles per year – for the treatment of each patient with metastatic breast cancer compared with ixabepilone. The results of the budget impact analysis showed that the indication of oral vinorelbine saved 3,287,470.56 rubles for the budget fund considering the change in the cost of 1 mg of the drug for a hypothetical population of patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer in 1000 people. This would create the possibility of therapy for additional 15 patients with this diagnosis. The indication of oral vinorelbine in first-line chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer for a similar target population would save 18,355,043.96 rubles for the budget fund, which makes it possible to treat 15 more patients with this diagnosis.Conclusion. The use of oral vinorelbine is associated with the saving of financial resources of a medical organization. In addition, the reimbursement for medical care provided from the compulsory medical insurance funds when using regimens with oral vinorelbine is primarily lower than for comparison drugs. Thus, the use of regimens with oral vinorelbine is more beneficial for the payer (the Federal Compulsory Health Insurance Fund) and for the medical organization. The change in the cost of the drug is associated with an increase in the availability of medical care for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Objective: Based on the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine economic and clinical consequences of using mepolizumab instead of omalizumab in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, when omalizumab is administered once every 2 weeks or mepolizumab is administered once every 4 weeks. Methods: Effectiveness and safety analysis was conducted based on the published network meta-analysis, because head-to-head clinical trials of omalizumab versus mepolizumab were not identified during targeted scientific literature search. Direct medical costs were calculated using information from the register of manufacturers` maximum selling prices for vital and essential drugs (VED), instructions for medical use, the unit cost of healthcare services. Results: Effectiveness and safety of the compared drugs were determined based on the results of the network meta-analysis. Frequency of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (risk ratio = 0,19; 95% CI: 0,02–2,32) and withdrawals due to adverse events (risk ratio = 0,05; 95% CI: 0,002–0,95). Therefore, despite the tendency to mepolisumab benefits, it was concluded that there are no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness and safety of the compared drugs due to the insufficient statistical power of the result. Direct medical costs were 870130 rubles and 1852063 rubles for mepolizumab and omalizumab respectively. Saving of direct medical costs for mepolizumab treatment was 959170 rubles per patient per year or 52%. Conclusion: treatment with mepolizumab versus omalizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, when omalizumab is administered once every 2 weeks or mepolizumab is administered once every 4 weeks, leads to saving of direct medical costs for drug treatment.

During last few years, the approaches to the management of patients with severe asthma have been revised. Monoclonal antibodies (MABs), inhibitors of interleukin-5 (reslizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab) have been recently introduced for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The mentioned drugs were approved in Russia and included into the list of Vitally Essential Drugs. Aim.The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic consequences of the use of biological agents that antagonize IL-5 in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in adults. Materials and methods.Two methods of clinical and economic research were used: assessment of the cost-effectiveness ratio and analysis of the budget impact. The effectiveness of the drugs was assessed using indirect comparison; special attention was paid to comparability of the patient groups in the studies chosen for such an assessment. Two approaches were used for calculation of the cost of therapy for severe asthma: using DRGs (applicable to most regions of Russia), and without the use of DRGs, which is relevant only for few Russian regions. Results.Basing on the data obtained from a budget impact study without the use of DRG, it was shown that reslizumab was dominating for patients with body mass of up to 70 kg, while for the patients with body mass of 70 to 110 kg, mepolizumab was dominating, while utilization of reslizumab appeared to be somewhat more expensive. In the group of patients with body mass over 110 kg, mepolizumab also was dominating. The calculation of the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) showed that reslizumab appeared to be dominating over two other MABs, The results of the study using the DRG demonstrated that the cost of an annual course of benralizumab in most cases in Russia would exceed the amount that can be compensated by Territorial Funds for Mandatory Medical Insurance to a healthcare institution for therapy of bronchial asthma in one adult patient with genetically engineered drugs. Therefore, further comparisons were made for reslizumab and mepolizumab only. Analysis of the impact on the budget demonstrated that treatment with reslizumab and mepolizumab would represent a similar burden for the budget. When applying cost-effectiveness analysis, reslizumab was more cost-effective than mepolizumab (regardless of patient body mass). Conclusion.Thus, the results of the clinical and economic study suggested that, basing on the cost-effectiveness analysis, reslizumab appeared to be the dominant IL-5 antagonist (regardless of body mass if DRG approach was used and in patients with body mass up to 110 kg, if such an approach was not used). Basing on budget impact analysis, calculations without use of DRG approach showed superiority of reslizumab over mepolizumab and benralizumab for the patients with body mass up to 70 kg and the DRG-based approach showed equal burden for the budget for reslizumab and mepolizumab for the patients with any body mass.

No abstract