Mohd Masnoon Saiyed

Background and Objective In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib showed superior clinical benefits to sorafenib in terms of progression-free survival and was non-inferior for overall survival in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC in Australia. Method A partitioned-survival model was built to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lenvatinib and sorafenib from an Australian health-system perspective. Survival curves were obtained from the REFLECT trial and fitted with parametric survival functions for extrapolation purposes beyond the trial follow-up. Cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were accrued over the 10-year time horizon of the model. Deterministic and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were carried out to verify the validity of the model. Results Lenvatinib incurred higher costs (A$96,325) and superior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.205), while sorafenib had lower costs (A$92,394) and inferior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.086). Thus, lenvatinib yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio of A$33,028/QALY gained. Further, the results of the PSA found that the probability of lenvatinib being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY was 64%. Conclusion Our study found that, at current prices, lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

J Pharmacol Pharmacother, Official publication of InPharm Association, India

BACKGROUND: The lack of specific medicines and labeling recommendations for the pediatric population is a long-standing problem. Using data from an observational study of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among pediatric inpatients, we aimed to test the hypothesis that off-label status is a risk factor for ADRs. METHODS: A prospective intensive surveillance was conducted at a pediatric ward of a public teaching hospital. Adverse events to labeled and off-label use were assessed for incidence, severity and predictors. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model used to assess off-label use is a risk factor for ADR occurring. RESULTS: Off-label and labeled use were responsible for 34 (67%) and 17 (33%) ADRs respectively. Medicines which lacked complete pediatric labeling had the greatest odds for ADRs (9.21% of medicines in this category were implicated, OR 2.84 (95% CI 1.37–7.09). Number of off-label medicines given to patient significantly increased the hazard of an ADR (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.43–3.78, P = 0.002). Number of medicines given also significantly increased the hazard (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.80–1.71, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of off-label medicines were more likely to be implicated in an ADR than labeled medicines. This off-label use would be acceptable if evidence of potential benefits outweighs ADRs risk.