A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Add-on Drug Therapies Specific for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Macitentan in Comparison With Bosentan in the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Iran

OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a chronic and progressive disease that, if left untreated, shortens the life expectancy of patients. Endothelin receptor antagonists, such as macitentan and bosentan, play an essential role in improving the patient's symptoms, quality of life, and life expectancy. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of macitentan compared with bosentan in treating PAH from the health system perspective in Iran.

METHODS

For evaluating the cost-effectiveness of macitentan, a Markov model consisting of 5 states, functional class (FC) I, FC II, FC III, FC IV, and death, was designed using the TreeAge software. The lifetime time horizon and a 3-month cycle length were set. Patients entered the model from FC II or FC III states based on the initial probabilities. Costs were measured in US dollars (USD), and outcomes were measured in terms of quality quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Consequently, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the robustness of the model by examining the possible effects of uncertainties on the final result.

RESULTS

The costs of treatment with macitentan and bosentan in PAH in Iran were calculated at 19 429 and 17 246 USD, and the outcomes were 4.02 and 3.04 QALYs, respectively. Therefore, ICER was calculated at 2233.46 USD/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the model is robust; nevertheless, it is most sensitive to the price of macitentan and bosentan.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with macitentan was associated with both higher costs and QALYs than bosentan. Nevertheless, it is considered the cost-effective treatment strategy in Iran given that the calculated ICER falls below the willingness to pay threshold.

Strategies for optimizing intravenous prostacyclin-analog therapy in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous prostacyclin-analogs (PCA, e.g. epoprostenol, treprostinil, iloprost) have become an essential part in the therapy of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), mainly pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). They show considerable differences in pharmacology. A combination therapy including intravenous drugs is regarded as the 'gold standard' in most of PAH patients.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses and summarizes the studies and concepts on which this therapy is based. To date, intravenous prostacyclin-analogs are mainly administered when standard therapy fails to improve patients to low-risk status. However, preliminary data from uncontrolled studies suggest that an 'upfront triple' therapy including intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin-analogs could be preferable in selected patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Various IV PCA have been evaluated in the treatment of patients with PAH. Today, combination therapy is the 'gold standard' for the majority of patients. Intravenous PCA is recommended from functional class III onwards. Timing of its initiation is still a point of discussion. An escalation of therapy to IV or SC PCA is always necessary if a low-risk status cannot be achieved with other targeted therapies. Preliminary data suggest that selected patients could benefit from an 'upfront triple' therapy. Controlled studies on which such recommendation could be based are lacking.

Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND

The clinical landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved in terms of disease definition and classification, trial designs, available therapies and treatment strategies as well as clinical guidelines. This study critically appraises published evidence synthesis studies, i.e. meta-analyses (MA) and network-meta-analyses (NMA), to better understand their quality, validity and discuss the impact of the findings from these studies on current decision-making in PAH.

METHODS

A systematic literature review to identify MA/NMA studies considering approved and available therapies for treatment of PAH was conducted. Embase, Medline and the Cochrane's Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to April 22, 2020, supplemented by searches in health technology assessment websites. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist covering six domains (relevance, credibility, analysis, reporting quality and transparency, interpretation and conflict of interest) was selected for appraisal of the included MA/NMA studies.

RESULTS

Fifty-two full publications (36 MAs, 15 NMAs, and 1 MA/NMA) in PAH met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were of low quality, with none of the studies being scored as 'strong' across all checklist domains. Key limitations included the lack of a clearly defined, relevant decision problem, shortcomings in assessing and addressing between-study heterogeneity, and an incomplete or misleading interpretation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first critical appraisal of published MA/NMA studies in PAH, suggesting low quality and validity of published evidence synthesis studies in this therapeutic area. Besides the need for direct treatment comparisons assessed in long-term randomized controlled trials, future efforts in evidence synthesis in PAH should improve analysis quality and scrutiny in order to meaningfully address challenges arising from an evolving therapeutic landscape.