Summary. The first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate bleeding episodes in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors in Brazil is currently activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC), with recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) used as second-line therapy or as a last resort. The aim of this study was to determine the cost and effectiveness of these treatments from the perspective of the Brazilian National Health Service. A decision analysis model was constructed to assess total direct medical costs (including drug costs, costs of outpatient or inpatient care, ambulance transportation and cost of concomitant medications) of first-line treatment with aPCC or rFVIIa. Clinical outcome and resource utilization data were obtained both retrospectively and prospectively and validated by the consensus of an expert panel of Brazilian haematologists. A total of 103 bleeds in 25 patients were included in the analysis. rFVIIa resolved bleeds more quickly (4.4 h) than aPCC (62.6 h) and was more effective (100% vs. 56.7% respectively). Mean total direct medical costs (from initiation to cessation of bleed) were estimated to be US$13 500 (aPCC) and US$7590 (rFVIIa). Extensive sensitivity analyses confirmed the costeffectiveness of rFVIIa. Compared with aPCC, rFVIIa was more effective and less expensive when used as first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate bleeding episodes in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors in Brazil. rFVIIa should be considered a first-line treatment for the management of these patients.

BackgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) is defined as a “group of clinical symptoms compatible with acute myocardial ischemia”, representing the leading cause of death worldwide, with a high clinical and financial impact. In this sense, the development of economic studies assessing the costs related to the treatment of ACS should be considered.ObjectiveTo evaluate costs and length of hospital stay between groups of patients treated for ACS undergoing angioplasty with or without stent implantation (stent+ / stent-), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and treated only clinically (Clinical) from the perspective of the Brazilian Supplementary Health System (SHS).MethodsA retrospective analysis of medical claims of beneficiaries of health plans was performed considering hospitalization costs and length of hospital stay for management of patients undergoing different types of treatment for ACS, between Jan/2010 and Jun/2012.ResultsThe average costs per patient were R$ 18,261.77, R$ 30,611.07, R$ 37,454.94 and R$ 40,883.37 in the following groups: Clinical, stent-, stent+ and CABG, respectively. The average costs per day of hospitalization were R$ 1,987.03, R$ 4,024.72, R$ 6,033.40 and R$ 2,663.82, respectively. The average results for length of stay were 9.19 days, 7.61 days, 6.19 days and 15.20 days in these same groups. The differences were significant between all groups except Clinical and stent- and between stent + and CABG groups for cost analysis.ConclusionHospitalization costs of SCA are high in the Brazilian SHS, being significantly higher when interventional procedures are required.

Background: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) have poor outcomes, with 5-year survival rates of < 5% for those with metastatic, stage IV disease. We have reviewed current treatment paradigms and emerging treatment options for these patients. Methods: The websites of seven national or international organizations were searched for metastatic UC treatment guidelines. Systematic literature reviews were conducted to identify evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage IV UC. Searches included congress databases and articles published between 1990 and 2018. In order to align with the latest treatment paradigms in first-line advanced UC, a focused literature search was conducted to identify evidence supporting immuno-oncology (IO) agents. Results: For advanced UC, guidelines universally recommend cisplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for eligible patients and carboplatin-based regimens for those unfit to receive cisplatin. Despite the evaluation of a number of different cytotoxic regimens over the years, including triplet combinations, survival outcomes have not improved markedly with chemotherapy. Median overall survival with standard of care chemotherapy is ~13 months. Based on the results of single-arm, phase II studies, recent treatment guidelines have included atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) as first-line options for cisplatin-ineligible patients whose tumors express high levels of PD-L1. However, emerging evidence from RCTs of IO agents, including both cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible patients, suggest that survival times exceeding 20 months are possible. Conclusions: After having reached a plateau with chemotherapy, the treatment landscape for advanced UC is evolving. Survival outcomes for patients with advanced UC are improving with treatment modalities involving IO agents.

The ELEVATE-RR primary analysis demonstrated noninferior progression-free survival and lower incidence of key adverse events (AEs) with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We further characterize AEs of acalabrutinib and ibrutinib via post hoc analysis. Overall and exposure-adjusted incidence rate was assessed for the most common Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor-associated AEs and for selected events of clinical interest (ECIs). AE burden scores based on previously published methodology were calculated for AEs overall and selected ECIs. Safety analyses included 529 patients (acalabrutinib, n=266; ibrutinib, n=263). Among the most common AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, urinary tract infection, back pain, muscle spasms, and dyspepsia were higher with ibrutinib (P &lt; .05), with 1.5−4.1-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rates. Incidences of headache and cough were higher with acalabrutinib (P &lt; .05), with 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rate, respectively. Among ECIs, incidences of any-grade atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding were higher with ibrutinib (P &lt; .05), as were exposure-adjusted incidence rates (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively); incidences of cardiac events overall (MedDRA system organ class) and infections were similar between arms. Rate of discontinuation due to AEs was lower for acalabrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93). AE burden score was higher for ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib overall and for the ECIs atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding (P &lt; .05). A limitation of this analysis is its open-label study design, which may influence the reporting of more subjective AEs. Overall, event-based analyses and AE burden scores demonstrated higher AE burden overall and specifically for atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and hemorrhage with ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib.

No abstract