Rachel Houten

Recognition, assessment, and management of coeliac disease: summary of updated NICE guidance.

#### The bottom line #### How patients were involved in the creation of this article Committee members involved in this guideline included lay members who contributed to the formulation of the recommendations summarised here. Coeliac disease is a common autoimmune condition, in which the ingestion of gluten (present in wheat, barley, and rye) activates an abnormal immune response, leading to chronic inflammation of the small intestine and malabsorption of nutrients. It affects about 1% of the UK population.1 Coeliac disease can present with a wide range of clinical features, although some people initially experience few or no symptoms. Treatment involves a lifelong gluten-free diet because untreated disease can lead to serious long term health complications. First degree relatives of a person with the disease and people with other conditions (including type 1 diabetes and Down’s syndrome) are at higher risk of having coeliac disease. This article summarises the recently updated recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the recognition, assessment, and management of coeliac disease.2 NICE recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the best available evidence and explicit consideration of cost effectiveness. When minimal evidence is available, recommendations are based on the Guideline Development Group’s experience …

Evaluating the use of plerixafor in stem cell mobilisation - an economic analysis of the PHANTASTIC trial.

Plerixafor is an effective haematopoietic stem cell mobilising agent in candidates for autologous transplantation, including patients with myeloma and lymphoma. Here we compare 98 plerixafor recipients in the PHANTASTIC trial with 151 historic controls mobilised by conventional chemotherapy (each with granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor, G‐CSF). Seventy (71.4%) plerixafor‐mobilised patients achieved the composite primary endpoint of ≥4 × 106 CD34+ cells kg−1 in ≤2 aphereses and no clinically significant neutropenia, compared to 48 (31.8%) historic controls (P < 0.001), and this significant advantage was maintained in scenario analyses testing components of this composite endpoint. A patient‐level cost analysis was undertaken for 249 patients, which included the cost of remobilising patients where initial mobilisation had failed. Combined mean treatment cost for plerixafor mobilised patients was £12,679 compared with £11,694 for historical controls. However, plerixafor produces an average saving of £3,828 per lymphoma patient but average cost increase by £5,245 per myeloma patient. The present data demonstrate cost‐effectiveness for plerixafor as a first line mobilisation agent, certainly for lymphoma patients, where substantial resource savings and achievement of the primary endpoint are likely. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:434–442, 2016.

Through a Glass Darkly: Economics and Personalised Medicine

Personalised medicine and pharmacogenetic-test-guided treatment strategies will be of increasing importance in the future, both in terms of healthcare provision and evaluation. It is well recognised that significant variability exists in the response of patients to drugs resulting from genetic or biological variations; however, we are only now gradually becoming aware of the complexities involved. Enormous variability occurs in the risk-benefit ratio that will be experienced by each individual patient as a consequence of their overall genetic make-up. Although not a panacea, enhanced scientific knowledge of the genetic basis for such variability offers the potential for a more ‘tailored’ approach to prescribing in the future, making it more closely attuned to the needs of the individual patient. Such ‘personalised’ medicine has the potential to revolutionise care provision in a manner that provides a range of challenges to current structures and processes of ‘conventional’ healthcare delivery. The aim of this paper is to outline such challenges and analyse potential ways in which they may be addressed in the future. It provides non-expert readers with a non-technical case study of the complexities inherent in the evaluation of a pharmacogenetic-test-guided treatment strategy from a health economic perspective. Wherever possible, technical issues have been minimised; however, references are provided for readers who wish to enhance their knowledge of the pharmacological basis of the case study of cytochrome P450 test-guided treatment. The case study aims simply to illustrate the approach and difficulties encountered in the health economic evaluation of complex pharmacogenetic technologies. Such technologies present a range of new and complex issues which have crucial implications for health economists attempting to obtain an accurate assessment of the ‘value’ of the technology in clinical practice in an array of patient subgroups. Personalised medicine is the future and this paper highlights how pharmaceutical manufacturers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders must all play their part in the inevitable and accelerating move into this complex and uncertain future.

Plerixafor is cost‐effective compared to conventional chemotherapy for first‐line haematopoietic stem cell mobilization: Data from the PHANTASTIC trial

Plerixafor is an effective haematopoietic stem cell mobilising agent in candidates for autologous transplantation, including patients with myeloma and lymphoma. Here we compare 98 plerixafor recipients in the PHANTASTIC trial with 151 historic controls mobilised by conventional chemotherapy (each with granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor, G‐CSF). Seventy (71.4%) plerixafor‐mobilised patients achieved the composite primary endpoint of ≥4 × 106 CD34+ cells kg−1 in ≤2 aphereses and no clinically significant neutropenia, compared to 48 (31.8%) historic controls (P < 0.001), and this significant advantage was maintained in scenario analyses testing components of this composite endpoint. A patient‐level cost analysis was undertaken for 249 patients, which included the cost of remobilising patients where initial mobilisation had failed. Combined mean treatment cost for plerixafor mobilised patients was £12,679 compared with £11,694 for historical controls. However, plerixafor produces an average saving of £3,828 per lymphoma patient but average cost increase by £5,245 per myeloma patient. The present data demonstrate cost‐effectiveness for plerixafor as a first line mobilisation agent, certainly for lymphoma patients, where substantial resource savings and achievement of the primary endpoint are likely. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:434–442, 2016.