Advances in the treatment of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis: A review

Introduction: Amyloid transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR) is a progressive and often fatal disease caused by the buildup of mutated (hereditary ATTR [hATTR]; also known as ATTR variant [ATTRv]) or normal transthyretin (wild-type ATTR) throughout the body. Two new therapies-inotersen, an antisense oligonucleotide therapy, and patisiran, an RNA interference therapy-received marketing authorization and represent a significant advance in the treatment of amyloidosis. Herein, we describe the clinical presentation of ATTR, commonly used procedures in its diagnosis, and current treatment landscape for ATTR, with a focus on hATTR. Methods: A PubMed search from 2008 to September 2018 was conducted to review the literature on ATTR. Results: Until recently, there have been few treatment options for polyneuropathy of hATTR. Inotersen and patisiran substantially reduce the amyloidogenic precursor protein transthyretin and have demonstrated efficacy in patients with early- and late-stage disease and in slowing or improving neuropathy progression. In contrast, established therapies, such as liver transplantation, typically reserved for patients with early-stage disease, and tafamidis, indicated for the treatment of early-stage disease in Europe, or diflunisal, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is used off-label, are associated with side effects and/or unclear efficacy in certain patient populations. Thus, inotersen and patisiran are positioned to be the preferred therapeutic modalities. Conclusions: Important differences between inotersen and patisiran, including formulation, dosing, requirements for premedications, and safety monitoring, require an understanding and knowledge of each treatment for informed decision making.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

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

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated.Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab and tocilizumab - with or without methotrexate where indicated) for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA excluded).Data sources: Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and DARE were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methods: Systematic reviews of clinical-effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision analytic model was developed to compare estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%.Results: Four placebo-controlled RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the clinical-effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar with fewer disease flares and greater proportions with ACR Pedi 50 and 70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARD. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that generally ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality of life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate was £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per QALY, respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second line biologic was £39,536 per QALY.Limitations: The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited.Conclusions: Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA, and an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow- are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes where evidence is lacking are also required.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. <br/