M Slobodan Jankovic

Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis: A Markov model based on data a Balkan country in socioeconomic transition

BACKGROUND/AIMnA cost-effectiveness analyses of immunomodulatory treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in developed countries have shown that any benefit from these drugs is achieved at very high cost. The aim of our study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of five treatment strategies in patients diagnosed with RRMS (symptom management alone and in combination with subcutaneous glatiramer acetate, intramuscular interferon beta-1a, subcutaneous interferon beta-1a, or intramuscular interferon [beta-1b) in a Balkan country in socio-economic transition.nnnMETHODSnThe Markov model was developed based on the literature about effectiveness and on local Serbian cost calculations. The duration of a cycle in the model was set to a month. The baseline time horizon was 480 months (40 years). The societal perspective was used for costs and outcomes, and they were discounted for 3% annually. Monte Carlo micro simulation with 1000 virtual patients was done.nnnRESULTSnSignificant gain with immunomodulatory therapy was achieved only in relapse-free years, while the time spent in health states EDSS 0.0-5.5 was longer with symptomatic therapy only, and gains in life years and QALYs were only marginal. One QALY gained costs more than a billion of Serbian dinars (more than 20 million US dollars), making each of the four immunomodulatory therapies cost-ineffective.nnnCONCLUSIONnOur study suggests that immunomodulatory therapy of RRMS in a Balkan country in socioeconomic transition is not cost-effective, regardless of the type of the therapy. Moderate gain in relapse-free years does not translate to gain in QALYs, probably due to adverse effects of immunomodulatory therapy.

Reslizumab versus placebo for poorly controlled, severe eosinophilic asthma: Meta-analysis

Background/Aim. Reslizumab is humanized monoclonal antibody produced by recombinant DNA technology which binds to circulating interleukin-5 (IL-5) and down-regulates the IL-5 signaling pathway. Reslizumab is indicated for the add-on maintenance treatment of patients 18 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma phenotype whose symptoms were inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of reslizumab compared to placebo in patients suffering from inadequately controlled, moderateto-severe asthma with elevated blood eosinophil counts. Methods. Our meta-analysis was based on systematic search of literature and selection of high-quality evidence according to pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. The effects of reslizumab and placebo were summarized using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 and heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochrane Q test and I2 values. Several types of bias were assessed and publication bias shown by Funnel plot and Egger’s regression. Results. The meta-analysis included 5 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg produced substantial improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1. second (FEV 1) (mean difference 0.15 [0.10, 0.21]) and in forced vital capacity (FVC) (mean difference 0.21 [0.09, 0.32]) over the 15 or 16-week treatment period, substantial decrease versus placebo in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score (mean difference -0.28 [-0.41, -0.16]), and substantial increase vs. placebo from baseline in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) total score (mean difference 0.24 [0.06, 0.43]). Also, reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg caused less adverse events versus placebo (OR 0.67 [0.51, 0.88]), especially asthma worsening (OR 0.53 [0.36, 0.77]) or bronchitis (OR 0.42 [0.24, 0.74]). Conclusion. On the basis of published clinical trials reslizumab could be considered as an effective and safe therapeutic option for severe, poorly controlled eosinophilic asthma for the time being.