Atorvastatin versus Bezafibrate in Mixed Hyperlipidaemia : Randomised Clinical Trial of Efficacy and Safety (the ATOMIX Study)

OBJECTIVE: Combined hyperlipidaemia is a common and highly atherogenic lipid phenotype with multiple lipoprotein abnormalities that are difficult to normalise with single-drug therapy. The ATOMIX multicentre, controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin and bezafibrate in patients with diet-resistant combined hyperlipidaemia. PATIENTS AND STUDY DESIGN: Following a 6-week placebo run-in period, 138 patients received atorvastatin 10mg or bezafibrate 400mg once daily in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. To meet predefined low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) target levels, atorvastatin dosages were increased to 20mg or 40mg once daily after 8 and 16 weeks, respectively. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, atorvastatin achieved greater reductions in LDL-C than bezafibrate (percentage decrease 35 vs 5; p < 0.0001), while bezafibrate achieved greater reductions in triglyceride than atorvastatin (percentage decrease 33 vs 21; p < 0.05) and greater increases in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) [percentage increase 28 vs 17; p < 0.01 ]. Target LDL-C levels (according to global risk) were attained in 62% of atorvastatin recipients and 6% of bezafibrate recipients, and triglyceride levels <200 mg/dL were achieved in 52% and 60% of patients, respectively. In patients with normal baseline HDL-C, bezafibrate was superior to atorvastatin for raising HDL-C, while in those with baseline HDL-C <35 mg/dL, the two drugs raised HDL-C to a similar extent after adjustment for baseline values. Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The results show that atorvastatin has an overall better efficacy than bezafibrate in concomitantly reaching LDL-C and triglyceride target levels in combined hyperlipidaemia, thus supporting its use as monotherapy in patients with this lipid phenotype.

A Pilot Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments in Newly Diagnosed High-Grade Gliomas: The Example of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid Compared With White-Light Surgery

BACKGROUND: High-grade gliomas are aggressive, incurable tumors characterized by extensive diffuse invasion of the normal brain parenchyma. Novel therapies at best prolong survival; their costs are formidable and benefit is marginal. Economic restrictions thus require knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of treatments. Here, we show the cost-effectiveness of enhanced resections in malignant glioma surgery using a well-characterized tool for intraoperative tumor visualization, 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 5-ALA fluorescence-guided neurosurgery compared with white-light surgery in adult patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma, adopting the perspective of the Portuguese National Health Service. METHODS: We used a Markov model (cohort simulation). Transition probabilities were estimated with the use of data from 1 randomized clinical trial and 1 noninterventional prospective study. Utility values and resource use were obtained from published literature and expert opinion. Unit costs were taken from official Portuguese reimbursement lists (2012 values). The health outcomes considered were quality-adjusted life-years, lifeyears, and progression-free life-years. Extensive 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are below €10 000 in all evaluated outcomes, being around €9100 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, €6700 per life-year gained, and €8800 per progression-free life-year gained. The probability of 5-ALA fluorescence-guided surgery cost-effectiveness at a threshold of €20000 is 96.0% for quality-adjusted life-year, 99.6% for life-year, and 98.8% for progression-free life-year. CONCLUSION: 5-ALA fluorescence-guided surgery appears to be cost-effective in newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas compared with white-light surgery. This example demonstrates cost-effectiveness analyses for malignant glioma surgery to be feasible on the basis of existing data.