Certolizumab pegol and secukinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis following inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs : a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Several biologic therapies are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients who have had an inadequate response to two or more synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). NICE does not specifically recommend switching from one biologic to another, and only ustekinumab (UST; STELARA(®), Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Horsham, PA, USA) is recommended after anti-tumour necrosis factor failure. Secukinumab (SEC; COSENTYX(®), Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and certolizumab pegol (CZP; CIMZIA(®), UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) have not previously been appraised by NICE. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP and SEC for treating active PsA in adults in whom DMARDs have been inadequately effective. DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 2016 for CZP and SEC studies; update searches were run to identify new comparator studies. REVIEW METHODS: Clinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) methods to investigate the relative efficacy of SEC and CZP compared with comparator therapies. A de novo model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEC and CZP compared with the other relevant comparators. The model was specified for three subpopulations, in accordance with the NICE scope (patients who have taken one prior DMARD, patients who have taken two or more prior DMARDs and biologic-experienced patients). The models were further classified according to the level of concomitant psoriasis. RESULTS: Nineteen eligible RCTs were included in the systematic review of short-term efficacy. Most studies were well conducted and were rated as being at low risk of bias. Trials of SEC and CZP demonstrated clinically important efficacy in all key clinical outcomes. At 3 months, patients taking 150 mg of SEC [relative risk (RR) 6.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 15.43] or CZP (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.94 to 5.56) were more likely to be responders than patients taking placebo. The NMA results for the biologic-naive subpopulations indicated that the effectiveness of SEC and CZP relative to other biologics and each other was uncertain. Limited data were available for the biologic-experienced subpopulation. Longer-term evidence suggested that these newer biologics reduced disease progression, with the benefits being similar to those seen for older biologics. The de novo model generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three subpopulations and three psoriasis subgroups. In subpopulation 1 (biologic-naive patients who had taken one prior DMARD), CZP was the optimal treatment in the moderate-severe psoriasis subgroup and 150 mg of SEC was optimal in the subgroups of patients with mild-moderate psoriasis or no concomitant psoriasis. In subpopulation 2 (biologic-naive patients who had taken two or more prior DMARDs), etanercept (ETN; ENBREL(®), Pfizer Inc., New York City, NY, USA) is likely to be the optimal treatment in all subgroups. The ICERs for SEC and CZP versus best supportive care are in the region of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In subpopulation 3 (biologic-experienced patients or patients in whom biologics are contraindicated), UST is likely to be the optimal treatment (ICERs are in the region of £21,000-27,000 per QALY). The optimal treatment in subpopulation 2 was sensitive to the choice of evidence synthesis model. In subpopulations 2 and 3, results were sensitive to the algorithm for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index costs. The optimal treatment is not sensitive to the use of biosimilar prices for ETN and infliximab (REMICADE(®), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). CONCLUSIONS: SEC and CZP may be an effective use of NHS resources, depending on the subpopulation and subgroup of psoriasis severity. There are a number of limitations to this assessment, driven mainly by data availability. FUTURE WORK: Trials are needed to inform effectiveness of biologics in biologic-experienced populations. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033357. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Biological therapies in the systemic management of psoriasis: International Consensus Conference

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder that usually requires long-term treatment for control. Approximately 25% of patients have moderate to severe disease and require phototherapy, systemic therapy or both. Despite the availability of numerous therapeutic options, the long-term management of psoriasis can be complicated by treatment-related limitations. With advances in molecular research and technology, several biological therapies are in various stages of development and approval for psoriasis. Biological therapies are designed to modulate key steps in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Collectively, biologicals have been evaluated in thousands of patients with psoriasis and have demonstrated significant benefit with favourable safety and tolerability profiles. The limitations of current psoriasis therapies, the value of biological therapies for psoriasis, and guidance regarding the incorporation of biological therapies into clinical practice are discussed.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72815/1/j.1365-2133.2004.06070.x.pd

Early clinical assessment of response to treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections:How can it help clinicians? Perspectives from Europe

AbstractSkin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) are a common indication for antibiotic use in Europe and are associated with considerable morbidity. Treatment of SSTIs, occasionally complicated by infection with meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, can be resource intensive and lead to high healthcare costs. For patients treated in an inpatient setting, once the acute infection has been controlled, a patient may be discharged on suitable oral antibiotic therapy or outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy. The recently confirmed efficacy of single-dose (e.g. oritavancin) and two-dose (e.g. dalbavancin) infusion therapies as well as tedizolid phosphate, a short-duration therapy available both for intravenous (i.v.) and oral use, for treating SSTIs has highlighted the need for clinicians to re-evaluate their current treatment paradigms. In addition, recent clinical trial data reporting a novel endpoint of early clinical response, defined as change in lesion size at 48–72 h, may be of value in determining which patients are most suitable for early de-escalation of therapy, including switch from i.v. to oral antibiotics, and subsequent early hospital discharge. The aim of this paper is to review the potential impact of assessing clinical response on clinical decision-making in the management of SSTIs in Europe, with a focus on emerging therapies

Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that predominantly affects the skin. Adalimumab (HUMIRA®, AbbVie, Maidenhead, UK), etanercept (Enbrel®, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) and ustekinumab (STELARA®, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Titusville, NJ, USA) are the three biological treatments currently licensed for psoriasis in children. Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab within their respective licensed indications for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children and young people. Data sources: Searches of the literature and regulatory sources, contact with European psoriasis registries, company submissions and clinical study reports from manufacturers, and previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal documentation. Review methods: Included studies were summarised and subjected to detailed critical appraisal. A network meta-analysis incorporating adult data was developed to connect the effectiveness data in children and young people and populate a de novo decision-analytic model. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with each other and with either methotrexate or best supportive care (BSC), depending on the position of the intervention in the management pathway. Results: Of the 2386 non-duplicate records identified, nine studies (one randomised controlled trial for each drug plus six observational studies) were included in the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. Etanercept and ustekinumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than placebo at 12 weeks’ follow-up. The magnitude and persistence of the effects beyond 12 weeks is less certain. Adalimumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than methotrexate for some but not all measures at 16 weeks. Quality-of-life benefits were inconsistent across different measures. There was limited evidence of excess short-term adverse events; however, the possibility of rare events cannot be excluded. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of biologics in children and young people exceeded NICE’s usual threshold for cost-effectiveness and were reduced significantly only when combined assumptions that align with those made in the management of psoriasis in adults were adopted. Limitations: The clinical evidence base for short- and long-term outcomes was limited in terms of total participant numbers, length of follow-up and the absence of young children. Conclusions: The paucity of clinical and economic evidence to inform the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments in children and young people imposed a number of strong assumptions and uncertainties. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with treatment and the number of hospitalisations in children and young people are areas of considerable uncertainty. The findings suggest that biological treatments may not be cost-effective for the management of psoriasis in children and young people at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, unless a number of strong assumptions about HRQoL and the costs of BSC are combined. Registry data on biological treatments would help determine safety, patterns of treatment switching, impact on comorbidities and long-term withdrawal rates. Further research is also needed into the resource use and costs associated with BSC. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials (including comparisons against placebo) could substantially reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of biological treatments in biologic-experienced populations of children and young people, particularly in younger children. Such trials should establish the impact of biological therapies on HRQoL in this population, ideally by collecting direct estimates of EuroQol-5 Dimensions for Youth (EQ-5D-Y) utilities. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039494. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials

Background Bisphosphonates have profound effects on bone physiology, and could modify the process of metastasis. We undertook collaborative meta-analyses to clarify the risks and benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in breast cancer. Methods We sought individual patient data from all unconfounded trials in early breast cancer that randomised between bisphosphonate and control. Primary outcomes were recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer mortality. Primary subgroup investigations were site of first distant recurrence (bone or other), menopausal status (postmenopausal [combining natural and artificial] or not), and bisphosphonate class (aminobisphosphonate [eg, zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate] or other [ie, clodronate]). Intention-to-treat log-rank methods yielded bisphosphonate versus control first-event rate ratios (RRs). Findings We received data on 18 766 women (18 206 [97%] in trials of 2–5 years of bisphosphonate) with median follow-up 5·6 woman-years, 3453 first recurrences, and 2106 subsequent deaths. Overall, the reductions in recurrence (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·87–1·01; 2p=0·08), distant recurrence (0·92, 0·85–0·99; 2p=0·03), and breast cancer mortality (0·91, 0·83–0·99; 2p=0·04) were of only borderline significance, but the reduction in bone recurrence was more definite (0·83, 0·73–0·94; 2p=0·004). Among premenopausal women, treatment had no apparent effect on any outcome, but among 11 767 postmenopausal women it produced highly significant reductions in recurrence (RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·78–0·94; 2p=0·002), distant recurrence (0·82, 0·74–0·92; 2p=0·0003), bone recurrence (0·72, 0·60–0·86; 2p=0·0002), and breast cancer mortality (0·82, 0·73–0·93; 2p=0·002). Even for bone recurrence, however, the heterogeneity of benefit was barely significant by menopausal status (2p=0·06 for trend with menopausal status) or age (2p=0·03), and it was non-significant by bisphosphonate class, treatment schedule, oestrogen receptor status, nodes, tumour grade, or concomitant chemotherapy. No differences were seen in non-breast cancer mortality. Bone fractures were reduced (RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·75–0·97; 2p=0·02). Interpretation Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival, but there is definite benefit only in women who were postmenopausal when treatment began. Funding Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council