This work aimed to provide an understanding of the current use and regulatory acceptability of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in labeling claims for central nervous system (CNS) agents. A subset of CNS agents was identified from all New Drug Approvals and Biologic License Applications for new drugs approved in the US from January 2006 to June 2012. Clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) (62%) and PROs (38%) were the most widely used primary outcome measures. The PROs were frequently used in combination with ClinROs. Twelve PRO claims were granted across 41% of CNS drug approvals: 83%, symptoms; 17%, functioning. The PROs are frequently utilized as primary and secondary end points in CNS agents, and labeling claims are granted at higher levels than for non-CNS agents (41% vs 24%, respectively). These claims are granted at a lower rate than expected, given that direct patient input may lend valuable insight to treatment impacts in most CNS diseases.

Background/aims To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab as either monotherapy or combined with laser therapy, compared with laser monotherapy, in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) causing visual impairment from a UK healthcare payer perspective. Methods A Markov model simulated long-term outcomes and costs of treating DME in one eye (BCVA ≤75 letters) based on data from the RESTORE Phase III trial. Outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for a 15-year time horizon based on 12-month follow-up from RESTORE and published long-term data. Costs included treatment, disease monitoring, visual impairment and blindness (at 2010 price levels). Results Ranibizumab monotherapy resulted in a 0.17 QALY gain at an incremental cost of £4191 relative to laser monotherapy, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £24 028. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 64% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Combined ranibizumab and laser therapy resulted in a 0.13 QALY gain at an incremental cost of £4695 relative to laser monotherapy (ICER £36 106; 42% probability of ICER <£30 000). Conclusions Based on RESTORE 1-year follow-up data, ranibizumab monotherapy appears to be cost-effective relative to laser monotherapy, the current standard of care. Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy is less certain. Ongoing studies will further inform on disease progression and the need for additional ranibizumab treatment.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness in people aged ≥50 years. Wet AMD in particular has a major impact on patient quality of life and imposes substantial burdens on healthcare systems. This systematic review examined the cost-effectiveness data for current therapeutic options for wet AMD. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for all articles reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses of wet AMD treatments. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all wet AMD health technology assessments (HTAs). Overall, 44 publications were evaluated in full and included in this review. A broad range of cost-effectiveness analyses were identified for the most commonly used therapies for wetAMD(pegaptanib, ranibizumab and photodynamic therapy [PDT] with verteporfin). Three studies evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD. A small number of analyses of other treatments, such as laser photocoagulation and antioxidant vitamins, were also found. Ranibizumab was consistently shown to be cost effective for wet AMD in comparison with all the approved wet AMD therapies (four of the five studies identified showed ranibizumab was cost effective vs usual care, PDT or pegaptanib); however, there was considerable variation in the methodology for cost-effectiveness modelling between studies. Findings from the HTAs supported those from the PubMed and EMBASE searches; of the seven HTAs that included ranibizumab, six (including HTAs for Australia, Canada and the UK) concluded that ranibizumab was cost effective for the treatment of wet AMD; most compared ranibizumabwith PDT and/or pegaptanib. By contrast, HTAs at best generally recommended pegaptanib or PDT for restricted use in subsets of patients with wet AMD. In the literature analyses, pegaptanib was found to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care (including PDT) or no treatment in one of five studies; the other four studies found pegaptanib was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on the stage of disease and time horizon. PDT was shown to be cost effective versus usual/best supportive care or no treatment in five of nine studies; two studies showed that PDT was of borderline cost effectiveness depending on baseline visual acuity, and two showed that PDT was not cost effective. We identified no robust studies that properly evaluated the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in wet AMD.

Management of patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) can exert a substantial burden upon caregivers. As new modes of treatment administration are developed, it is important to assess caregiver satisfaction and preference in a standardized manner. This study describes the development of the Alzheimer’s Disease Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) to assess AD caregivers’ satisfaction with and preference for patch or capsule treatments in AD patients.

Measures of activities of daily living (ADL), as a functional assessment, may be a more accurate payer-relevant reflection of disease burden than cognitive assessments in Alzheimer's disease. The objective of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of ADL instruments in cost-effectiveness modelling in Alzheimer's disease. A core economic model used Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores from the IDEAL trial, which demonstrated significant benefits for rivastigmine patch over placebo. The model was adapted to include Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) scores, with assumptions made on disease progression over a 5-year period. The clinical pathway was populated based on the results of the pivotal IDEAL trial, with 12-month follow-up data from patients who received rivastigmine patch (n = 383) and 6-month follow-up data from patients who received placebo (n = 282). The progression of the disease was modelled beyond the study period of one year by defining ADCS-ADL as a function of MMSE, and using published equations on disease progression to predict the natural decline of MMSE. The ADCS-ADL data were then mapped to the Townsend Activities of Daily Living (Townsend-ADL) scale for the prediction of institutionalization. Costing variables included drugs, clinical monitoring, institutionalization and community burden of care. The model based on MMSE scores showed an incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained over best supportive care (BSC) of £13,042, whereas the Townsend-ADL model indicated total cost savings, primarily attributable to number of institutionalized days avoided over 5 years (67.5 days for ADL compared to 19.2 days for MMSE). Results were insensitive to the type of regression analyses (linear versus logistic) that were carried out to establish the relationship of MMSE and ADL scales. Both the MMSE and Townsend-ADL models demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of rivastigmine patch for patients with AD. ADL modeling should be regarded as a valuable technique for future economic evaluations in the treatment of AD.