Suppr超能文献

培塞利珠单抗(喜达诺)治疗类风湿关节炎。

Certolizumab pegol (CIMZIA®) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

机构信息

Unit of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2010 Oct;14(Suppl. 2):1-10. doi: 10.3310/hta14suppl2/01.

Abstract

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of certolizumab pegol (CZP) for adults with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that have not responded adequately to treatment with conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX), in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The outcome measures included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50 and 70 response rates and quality of life measures after 3 months and 6 months of treatment. The ERG examined the submission's search strategies and considered they appeared comprehensive and that it was unlikely that relevant studies would have been missed. Only English language studies were considered in the submission and non-English language studies relevant to the decision problem may possibly have been ignored. The ERG analysed the first submitted economic model so as to itemise in detail clarification points that were brought to the attention of the manufacturer. In response the manufacturer submitted a modified cost-effectiveness analysis. The ERG undertook further analysis of this second model and other additional submitted evidence. The clinical evidence was derived from two multicentre blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CZP + MTX to placebo + MTX (the RAPID 1 and RAPID 2 trials). RAPID 1 lasted 52 weeks with 982 patients and RAPID 2 24 weeks with 619 patients. Evidence for clinical effectiveness of CZP in mono-therapy came from the 24-week FAST4WARD trial with 220 patients that compared CZP (400 mg every 4 weeks) versus placebo. The three key RCTs demonstrated statistically significant superiority of CZP + MTX versus placebo + MTX and of CZP versus placebo with respect to a variety of outcomes including ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 measures and quality of life measures at 3 and 6 months. On the basis of results from the indirect comparison meta-analyses, the manufacturer suggested that CZP may be at least as effective as other 'biological' DMARD (bDMARD) comparators and, in a few ACR measures at 3 and 6 months, more effective. CZP is an effective therapy for adult RA patients whose disease has failed to respond adequately to cDMARDs including MTX or who are intolerant of MTX. The cost-effectiveness of CZP relative to other bDMARDs is unclear because the economic modelling undertaken may have ignored relevant effectiveness data and potential differences between trial populations, and so may have included effectiveness results that were biased in favour of CZP; underestimated uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of compared DMARDs; and ignored the potential influence of differences between bDMARDs with regard to adverse events and their related costs and health impacts. The NICE guidance issued in October 2009 states that: the Committee is minded not to recommend certolizumab pegol as a treatment option for people with RA; and the Committee recommends that NICE asks the manufacturer of CZP for more information on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP for the treatment of people with RA. On receipt of this information and details of a patient access scheme NICE issued final guidance recommending CZP, under certain criteria, as a treatment option for people with RA.

摘要

本文总结了证据审查小组(ERG)关于培塞利珠单抗(CZP)在常规疾病修饰抗风湿药物(DMARDs)治疗反应不足的成年活动性类风湿关节炎(RA)患者中的临床疗效和成本效益的评估报告,符合许可适应症,基于制造商向英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)提交的证据,作为单一技术评估(STA)过程的一部分。结局测量包括治疗 3 个月和 6 个月后的美国风湿病学会(ACR)20、50 和 70 反应率和生活质量测量。ERG 审查了提交的搜索策略,并认为搜索策略全面,不太可能遗漏相关研究。提交的内容只考虑了英语研究,可能忽略了与决策问题相关的非英语研究。ERG 分析了第一个提交的经济模型,以详细说明提请制造商注意的澄清要点。制造商对此做出了回应,提交了一份经过修改的成本效益分析。ERG 对第二个模型和其他提交的证据进行了进一步分析。临床证据来自两项多中心、双盲、随机对照试验(RCT),比较了 CZP+MTX 与安慰剂+MTX(RAPID 1 和 RAPID 2 试验)。RAPID 1 持续 52 周,纳入 982 例患者,RAPID 2 持续 24 周,纳入 619 例患者。CZP 单药治疗疗效的证据来自于 220 例患者的 24 周 FAST4WARD 试验,比较了 CZP(400mg,每 4 周 1 次)与安慰剂。三项关键 RCT 表明,与安慰剂+MTX 相比,CZP+MTX 和 CZP 均具有统计学意义上的优越性,在 3 个月和 6 个月时,ACR 20、ACR 50 和 ACR 70 测量以及生活质量测量也具有优越性。基于间接比较荟萃分析的结果,制造商认为 CZP 至少与其他“生物”DMARD(bDMARD)对照药物一样有效,在 3 个月和 6 个月时的一些 ACR 测量中,更有效。CZP 是一种有效的治疗药物,适用于疾病对包括 MTX 在内的 cDMARD 治疗反应不足或对 MTX 不耐受的成年 RA 患者。CZP 相对于其他 bDMARD 的成本效益尚不清楚,因为进行的经济建模可能忽略了相关的疗效数据和试验人群之间的潜在差异,因此可能包括有利于 CZP 的疗效结果;低估了比较 DMARD 相对有效性的不确定性;并忽略了 bDMARD 之间关于不良反应及其相关成本和健康影响的潜在差异。NICE 于 2009 年 10 月发布的指南指出:委员会不倾向于推荐培塞利珠单抗作为治疗 RA 患者的选择;委员会建议 NICE 要求 CZP 制造商提供更多关于培塞利珠单抗治疗 RA 患者的临床疗效和成本效益的信息。在收到该信息和患者准入计划的详细信息后,NICE 发布了最终指南,建议在某些条件下,将 CZP 作为 RA 患者的治疗选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验