• Fondaparinux was the most cost-effective agent for suspected HIT, prevailing over both argatroban and bivalirudin.• Our data suggest potential cost savings with fondaparinux and underscore the need for larger clinical studies of fondaparinux in this area.Despite the availability of multiple nonheparin anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), few data are available comparing the costeffectiveness of these agents. This analysis is particularly important when considering differences in the risk of adverse effects, routes of administration, requirements for phlebotomy and laboratory monitoring, and overall drug costs. We conducted a costeffectiveness analysis of argatroban, bivalirudin, and fondaparinux for the treatment of suspected HIT from the institutional perspective. A 3-arm decision-tree model was developed that employs standard practices for anticoagulation monitoring. We incorporated published data on drug efficacy and probability of HIT-related thromboembolism and major bleeding. We considered both institutional costs and average wholesale price (AWP) and performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to address any uncertainty in model parameters. Using institutional costs, fondaparinux prevailed over both argatroban and bivalirudin in terms of cost ($151 vs $1250 and $1466, respectively) and adverse events averted (0.9989 vs 0.9957 and 0.9947, respectively). Results were consistent when AWP was used, with fondaparinux being less expensive ($555 vs $3081 and $2187, respectively) and more effective in terms of adverse events averted (0.9989 vs 0.9957 and 0.9947, respectively). The PSA confirmed our findings using both institutional costs and AWP. In conclusion, fondaparinux subcutaneous injection afforded significant advantages in terms of cost savings and adverse events averted compared with IV argatroban or bivalirudin infusions. Our data strongly suggest potential cost savings with fondaparinux and underscore the critical need for larger clinical studies of fondaparinux in the treatment of suspected HIT. (Blood. 2016;128(26):3043-3051)

bDMARD treatment sequences are cost-effective from a US societal perspective.

In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P + GEM over FOLFIRINOX.

This sponsor-independent economic evaluation for USA found that OX + GEM, CAP + GEM, FOLFIRINOX, and NAB-P + GEM, but not CIS + GEM, were more expensive but also more effective than GEM alone in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. The NAB-P + GEM regimen appears to be the most cost effective in USA at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.

Background Understanding the evolving treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is important for rheumatologists to make the best practice decisions and optimize treatment. Here, we describe treatment patterns among patients newly initiated on biologic and/or nonbiologic RA therapy over time after enrollment in the US Corrona RA registry. Methods This was a retrospective, cohort study of adult patients with RA enrolled in the Corrona RA registry. Patients were included in this study if they initiated therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) monotherapy, TNF inhibitor (TNFi) monotherapy, other (non-TNFi) biologic monotherapy, or combination therapy (index therapy); initiated therapy between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2015 (index date), after enrollment in the Corrona RA registry; had at least 6 months of follow-up time after the index date; and had at least one follow-up visit. Time periods of interest were based on the year of index therapy initiation: 2004–2007, 2008–2011, and 2012–2015. Results This study included 8027 patients. csDMARD monotherapy and TNFi + csDMARD combination therapy were the most common index therapies in the registry (39.9% and 44.9%, respectively, in the 2004–2007 period; 38.6% and 38.2%, respectively, in the 2008–2011 period; and 35.2% for both in the 2012–2015 period). At therapy initiation, a higher proportion of patients who initiated other biologics, whether as monotherapies (54.0%) or in combination with csDMARD (49.9%), had high disease activity than those who initiated csDMARD monotherapy (28.4%). For 2012–2015 vs 2004–2007 and 2008–2011 periods, persistence on a given therapy appeared to decrease for the TNFi monotherapy cohort (48.2% vs 64.3% and 52.4%) and other biologic monotherapy cohort (52.3% vs 71.4% and 54.5%) over 12 months; switching from one therapy to another was common in the Corrona RA registry. Conclusions Increased switching from one therapy to another and decreased time on a given therapy was observed in the Corrona RA registry in the 2012–2015 period. This observation is most likely due to the increased availability of additional treatment options and/or the change in clinical focus, particularly the emphasis on achievement of treat-to-target goals of remission or low disease activity along with more aggressive treatment.