Cost-effectiveness modeling of abatacept versus other biologic agents in DMARDS and anti-TNF inadequate responders for the management of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis

To assess the cost-effectiveness of abatacept compared to different biologic treatment strategies for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis based on current medical practices in Canada. A model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various biologic treatments over a 2-year time horizon, using two effectiveness endpoints: "low disease activity state” (LDAS) and "remission”. Abatacept, as first biologic agent after an inadequate response to DMARDs, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (29.4% versus 15.6%) and remission (14.8% versus 5.2%), and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p < 0.001). Abatacept, as second biologic agent after an inadequate response to one anti-TNF agent, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (17.1% versus 10.2%) and remission (7.4% versus 3.9%) and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p < 0.001). Abatacept is a cost-effective strategy in patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs or to one anti-TNF agen

Cost-effectiveness modelling of biological treatment sequences in moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in France

Objectives. Modern treatment of RA includes the use of biologics. Their cost is high and comparison between different treatment strategies is needed. Method. Direct medical costs of RA in France were evaluated based on expert opinion. Then, simulation-decision analytical models were developed to assess four biologic treatment sequences over 2 years in patients failing to respond to at least one anti-TNF agent. Effectiveness was expressed in theoretical expected number of days (TEND) in remission or low disease activity [low disease activity score (LDAS)] based on DAS-28 scores. Results. Direct medical costs of RA in France (excluding the cost of biologics) were estimated at €905 (s.d. 263) for 6 months and €696 (s.d. 240) for each subsequent 6 months (P < 0.001) for patients achieving LDAS and €1215 for 6 months (s.d. 405) for patients not achieving LDAS. Based on LDAS criteria, using abatacept after an inadequate response to the first anti-TNF agent (etanercept) appeared significantly (P < 0.01) more efficacious over a 2-year period (102 TEND) compared with using rituximab at a 6-month re-treatment interval (82 TEND). Mean cost-effectiveness ratios showed significantly lower costs (P < 0.01) per TEND with abatacept as second biologic agent (€278) compared with rituximab (€303). After an inadequate response to two anti-TNF agents, using abatacept also appeared significantly more efficacious than an anti-TNF agent (P < 0.01). All comparisons were confirmed when using remission criteria instead of LDAS. Conclusion. Advanced simulation models based on clinical evidence and medical practice appear to be a promising approach for comparing cost-effectiveness of biologic strategies in R

Modelling Cost-Effectiveness of Biologic Treatments Based on Disease Activity Scores for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Spain

Background. The objective of this simulation model was to assess the cost-effectiveness of different biological treatment strategies based on levels of disease activity in Spain, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to at least one anti-TNF agent. Methods. Clinically meaningful effectiveness criteria were defined using DAS28 scores: remission and Low Disease Activity State (LDAS) thresholds. Monte-Carlo simulations were conducted to assess cost-effectiveness over 2 years of four biological sequential strategies composed of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, infliximab), abatacept or rituximab, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to etanercept as first biological agent. Results. The sequential strategy including etanercept, abatacept and adalimumab appeared more efficacious over 2 years (102 days in LDAS) compared to the same sequence including rituximab as second biological option (82 days in LDAS). Cost-effectiveness ratios showed lower costs per day in LDAS with abatacept (427 €) compared to rituximab as second biological option (508 €). All comparisons were confirmed when using remission criteria. Conclusion. Model results suggest that in patients with an insufficient response to anti-TNF agents, the biological sequences including abatacept appear more efficacious and cost-effective than similar sequences including rituximab or cycled anti-TNF agents

DEVELOPMENT and ACCEPTABILITY of A NEW INTERNATIONAL QUALITY of LIFE INSTRUMENT SPECIFIC TO PHYSICAL APPEARANCE: BEAUTYQOL

Data Min Int, Geneva, SwitzerlandLab Sante Publ, Marseilles, FranceNatl Ctr Sci Res, Villeurbanne, FranceUniv Utah, Hlth Sci Ctr, Salt Lake City, UT USAUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Tokyo, Bunkyo Ku, Tokyo 113, JapanLOreal Int, Asnieres, FranceUniv Paris 06, Paris, FranceUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

International development of the first quality of life instrument specific to cosmetology and physical appearance: the BeautyQol initiative

Data Mining Int, Geneva, SwitzerlandLab Sante Publ, Marseilles, FranceNatl Ctr Sci Res, Lyon, FranceUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Tokyo, Tokyo, JapanLoreal Int, Asnieres, FranceUniv Paris 06, Paris, FranceUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management of Helicobacter pylori-related dyspepsia and peptic ulcer in the UK.

Clinical data comparing diagnostic strategies in the management of Helicobacter pylori-associated diseases are limited. Invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tests for detecting H. pylori infection are used in the clinical care of patients with dyspeptic symptoms. Modelling studies might help to identify the most cost-effective strategies. The objective of the study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a 'test-and-treat' strategy with the urea breath test (UBT) compared with other strategies, in managing patients with H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and preventing peptic ulcer in the UK. Cost-effectiveness models compared four strategies: 'test-and-treat' with either UBT or faecal antigen test (FAT), 'endoscopy-based strategy' and 'symptomatic treatment'. A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a simulation model in order to identify probabilities and costs associated with relief of dyspepsia symptoms (over a 4-week time horizon) and with prevention of peptic ulcers (over a 10-year time horizon). Clinical and cost inputs to the model were derived from routine medical practice in the UK. For relief of dyspepsia symptoms, 'test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT (€526/success) and FAT (€518/success) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with 'endoscopy-based strategy' (€1317/success) and 'symptomatic treatment' (€1 029/success). For the prevention of peptic ulcers, 'test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT (€208/ulcer avoided/year) or FAT (€191/ulcer avoided/year) were the most cost-effective strategies compared with 'endoscopy-based strategy' (€717/ulcer avoided/year) and 'symptomatic treatment' (€651/ulcer avoided/year) (1 EUR=0,871487 GBP at the time of the study). 'Test-and-treat' strategies with either UBT or FAT are the most cost-effective medical approaches for the management of H. pylori-associated dyspepsia and the prevention of peptic ulcer in the UK. A 'test-and-treat' strategy with UBT has comparable cost-effectiveness outcomes to the current standard of care using FAT in the UK

The FLURESP European commission project. cost-effectiveness assessment of ten public health measures against influenza in Italy. is there an interest in COVID-19 pandemic?

Background: The FLURESP project is a public health research funded by the European Commission, with the objective to design a methodological framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of existing public health measures against human influenza pandemics. A dataset has been specifically collected in the frame of the Italian health system. As most of interventions against human influenza are relavant against other respiratory diseases pandemics, potential interests in COVID-19 are discussed. Methods: Ten public health measures against human influenza pandemics pandemic were selected to be also relevant to other respiratory virus pandemics such as COVID 19: individual (hand washing, using masks), border control (quarantine, fever screening, border closure), community infection (school closure, class dismissal, social distancing, limitation of public transport), reduction of secondary infections (implementation of antibiotic therapy guidelines), pneumococcal vaccination for at-risk people, development of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity, implementation of life support equipments in ICU, screening interventions, vaccination programs targeting health professional and targeting general population. Results: Using mortality reduction as effectiveness criteria, the most cost-effective strategies are "reduction of secondary infections" and "implementation of life support equipment in ICU". The least cost-effective option whatever the level of pandemic events are screening interventions and mass vaccination. Conclusions: A number of intervention strategies against human influenza pandemics appears relevant against every respiratory virus, including the COVID-19 event. Measures against pandemics should be considered according to their expected effectiveness but also their costs for the society because they impose substantial burden to the population, confirming the interest of considering cost-effectiveness of public health measures to enlighten decision making

Assessing the impact of exposome on the course of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystc fibrosis:The REMEDIA European Project Approach

International audienceBecause of the direct interaction of lungs with the environment, respiratory diseases are among the leading causes of environment-related deaths in the world. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cystic fibrosis (CF) are two highly debilitating diseases that are of particular interest in the context of environmental studies; they both are characterized by a similar progressive loss of lung function with small bronchi alterations, and a high phenotypic variability of unknown origin, which prevents a good therapeutic efficacy. In the last years, there has been an evolution in the apprehension of the study of diseases going from a restricted &quot;one exposure, one disease&quot; approach to a broader concept with other associating factors, the exposome. The overall objective of the REMEDIA project is to extend the understanding of the contribution of the exposome to COPD and CF diseases. To achieve our aim, we will (1) exploit data from existing cohorts and population registries to create a unified global database gathering phenotype and exposome information; (2) develop a flexible individual sensor device combining environmental and biomarker toolkits; (3) use a versatile atmospheric simulation chamber to simulate the health effects of complex exposomes; (4) use machine learning supervised analyses and causal inference models to identify relevant risk factors; and (5) develop econometric and cost-effectiveness models to assess the costs, performance, and cost-effectiveness of a selection of prevention strategies. The results will be used to develop guidelines to better predict disease risks and constitute the elements of the REMEDIA toolbox. The multidisciplinary approach carried out by the REMEDIA European project should represent a major breakthrough in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with COPD and CF diseases