Economic Evaluation of Rheumathoid Arthritis Monotherapy with Tocilizumab and Adalimumab

[Resumen] Fundamento: Tocilizumab (TCZ) fue superior a adalimumab (ADA) en monoterapia en la reducción de los signos y síntomas de la artritis reumatoide del adulto (AR) en pacientes intolerantes o con respuesta inadecuada a metotrexato (MTX). El objetivo del estudio fue analizar el coste-efectividad de TCZ vs ADA en estos pacientes. Métodos: Evaluación económica del coste por respuesta o remisión con TCZ vs ADA a partir del estudio ADACTA (horizonte temporal: 24 semanas). Criterios de respuesta clínica ACR o de remisión de la enfermedad, índice DAS28. Ámbito: Sistema Nacional de Salud. Los costes incluidos (adquisición, administración y monitorización de los medicamentos en € de 2012) se obtuvieron de fuentes españolas. Se efectuaron análisis de sensibilidad simples univariantes. Resultados: Las tasas de respuesta ACR20, ACR50 y ACR70 con TCZ y ADA se obtuvieron en el 65% y 49,4% (p <0,01); 47,2% y 27,8% (p <0,01); y en el 32,5% y 17,9% (p <0,01) de los pacientes, respectivamente. La remisión DAS28 se produjo en el 39,9% y 10,5%, respectivamente (p <0,0001). El coste por respuesta fue menor con TCZ que con ADA (ACR20: 8.105 y 11.553 €; ACR50: 11.162 y 20.529 €; ACR70: 16.211 y 31.882 €) respectivamente. El coste de la remisión DAS28 fue de 13.204 € y 54.352 € respectivamente. En todos los escenarios el tratamiento con TCZ tuvo mayor eficacia y menores costes que con ADA. Conclusiones: Según este análisis, en España la monoterapia con TCZ es una estrategia eficiente frente a ADA para el tratamiento de los pacientes con AR intolerantes o con respuesta inadecuada a MTX.[Abstract] Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) was superior to adalimumab (ADA), as monotherapy, in reducing signs and symptoms of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when methotrexate (MTX) treatment is poorly tolerated or inappropriate. The aim of the study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of TCZ vs ADA in these patients. Methods: Economic evaluation of the cost per response or remission of TCZ vs ADA from ADACTA (time horizon: 24 weeks). Clinical response criteria ACR or disease remission criteria, DAS28. Perspective: National Health System. The costs included (acquisition, administration and monitoring of medicines; € 2012) were obtained from Spanish sources. Simple univariate sensitivity analyzes were performed. Results: ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates with TCZ and ADA were obtained in 65% and 49.4% (p <0.01), 47.2% and 27.8% (p <0.01); and 32.5% and 17.9% (p <0.01) of patients, respectively. DAS28 remission occurred in 39.9% and 10.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The cost per response was lower with TCZ than with ADA (ACR20: € 8,105 and € 11,553; ACR50: € 11,162 and € 20,529; ACR70: € 16,211 and € 31,882) respectively. The cost of DAS28 remission was € 13,204 and € 54,352, respectively. Treatment with TCZ was dominant (more effective, with lower costs vs ADA) in all scenarios analyzed. Conclusions: According to this analysis, in Spain TCZ monotherapy is an efficient strategy vs ADA for treating RA patients intolerant to MTX or in which there is inappropriate response

II Jornadas de la Sociedad Española para la Conservación y Estudio de Los Mamíferos (SECEM) Soria 7-9 diciembre 1995

Seguimiento de una reintroducción de corzo (Capreolus capreolus) en ambiente mediterráneo. Dispersión y área de campeoModelos de distribución de los insectívoros ern la Península IbéricaDieta anual del zorro, Vulpes vulpes, en dos hábitats del Parque Nacional de DoñanaDesarrollo juvenil del cráneo en las poblaciones ibéricas de gato montés, Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777Presencia y expansión del visón americano (Mustela vison) en las provincias de Teruel y Castellón (Este de España).Preferencias de hábitat invernal de la musaraña común (Crocidura russula) en un encinar fragmentado de la submeseta norteUso de cámaras automáticas para la recogida de información faunística.Dieta del lobo en dos zonas de Asturias (España) que difieren en carga ganadera.Consumo de frutos y dispersión de semillas de serbal (Sorbus aucuparia L.) por zorros y martas en la cordillera Cantábrica occidentalEvaluación de espermatozoides obtenidos postmorten en el ciervo.Frecuencia de aparición de diferentes restos de conejo en excrementos de lince y zorroAtlas preliminar de los mamíferos de Soria (España)Censo y distribución de la marmota alpina (Marmota marmota) en Navarra.Trampeo fotográfico del género Martes en el Parque Nacional de Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici (Lleida)Peer reviewe

Cut-offs and response criteria for the Hospital Universitario la Princesa Index (HUPI) and their comparison to widely-used indices of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis

Objective To estimate cut-off points and to establish response criteria for the Hospital Universitario La Princesa Index (HUPI) in patients with chronic polyarthritis. Methods Two cohorts, one of early arthritis (Princesa Early Arthritis Register Longitudinal PEARL] study) and other of long-term rheumatoid arthritis (Estudio de la Morbilidad y Expresión Clínica de la Artritis Reumatoide EMECAR]) including altogether 1200 patients were used to determine cut-off values for remission, and for low, moderate and high activity through receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. The areas under ROC (AUC) were compared to those of validated indexes (SDAI, CDAI, DAS28). ROC analysis was also applied to establish minimal and relevant clinical improvement for HUPI. Results The best cut-off points for HUPI are 2, 5 and 9, classifying RA activity as remission if =2, low disease activity if >2 and =5), moderate if >5 and <9 and high if =9. HUPI''s AUC to discriminate between low-moderate activity was 0.909 and between moderate-high activity 0.887. DAS28''s AUCs were 0.887 and 0.846, respectively; both indices had higher accuracy than SDAI (AUCs: 0.832 and 0.756) and CDAI (AUCs: 0.789 and 0.728). HUPI discriminates remission better than DAS28-ESR in early arthritis, but similarly to SDAI. The HUPI cut-off for minimal clinical improvement was established at 2 and for relevant clinical improvement at 4. Response criteria were established based on these cut-off values. Conclusions The cut-offs proposed for HUPI perform adequately in patients with either early or long term arthritis

Real-Life Impact of Glucocorticoid Treatment in COVID-19 Mortality: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

We aimed to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality, in a retrospective cohort study of the SEMICOVID19 database of admitted patients with SARS-CoV-2 laboratory-confirmed pneumonia from 131 Spanish hospitals. Patients treated with corticosteroids were compared to patients not treated with corticosteroids; and adjusted using a propensity-score for steroid treatment. From March-July 2020, 5.262 (35.26%) were treated with corticosteroids and 9.659 (64.73%) were not. In-hospital mortality overall was 20.50%; it was higher in patients treated with corticosteroids than in controls (28.5% versus 16.2%, OR 2.068 [95% confidence interval; 1.908 to 2.242]; p = 0.0001); however, when adjusting by occurrence of ARDS, mortality was significantly lower in the steroid group (43.4% versus 57.6%; OR 0.564 [95% confidence interval; 0.503 to 0.633]; p = 0.0001). Moreover, the greater the respiratory failure, the greater the impact on mortality of the steroid treatment. When adjusting these results including the propensity score as a covariate, in-hospital mortality remained significantly lower in the steroid group (OR 0.774 [0.660 to 0.907], p = 0.002). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 24% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0.24). These results support the use of glucocorticoids in COVID-19 in this subgroup of patients

Efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate in ten countries in Europe and Latin America (HERALD): a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial

Background: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. Methods: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18–60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 μg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020–003998–22, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0–61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5–86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18–60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2–64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Interpretation: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis : Results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study

Background Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between −2·5 and −4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between −1·5 and −4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than −4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). Findings Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43–40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45–60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40–0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39–0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68–0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42–0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40–0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66–0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95–1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90–1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02–1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58–1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98–1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02–1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10–1·71; p=0·0051). Interpretation Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis