• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

模拟生物制剂治疗银屑病关节炎的成本效益。

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments for psoriatic arthritis.

机构信息

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.

出版信息

Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011 Sep;50 Suppl 4:iv39-iv47. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker245.

DOI:10.1093/rheumatology/ker245
PMID:21859705
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

A probabilistic model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of three biologics, etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab, compared with palliative care for the treatment of active and progressive PsA in patients who have an inadequate response to standard treatment (including DMARDs).

METHODS

A previous model was revised to evaluate the impact of biologics on both skin and joint disease and to include new evidence from the clinical review and evidence synthesis. Initial response to biologics was determined using the PsA response criteria. The impact of biologics on the arthritis component of the disease is then modelled via a change in the HAQ and the impact of the psoriasis component measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index.

RESULTS

For PsA patients with mild to moderate skin disease, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for etanercept vs palliative care is around £18 000, and the ICER for infliximab vs etanercept is around £44 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Adalimumab is extendedly dominated. The probability that etanercept is cost effective is 0.436 at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Etanercept is also likely to be cost effective for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis or negligible skin involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Further investigation is required to reduce uncertainties around a number of model parameters, in particular the length of time over which biologics are assumed to be effective and the progression of HAQ on and off treatment.

摘要

目的

为评估生物制剂(依那西普、英夫利昔单抗和阿达木单抗)对比姑息治疗在标准治疗(包括 DMARDs)失败后对活动期和进展性银屑病关节炎(PsA)患者的有效性和经济性,建立了一个概率模型。

方法

对先前的模型进行修订,以评估生物制剂对皮肤和关节疾病的影响,并纳入临床审查和证据综合的新证据。生物制剂的初始反应采用 PsA 反应标准确定。然后,通过改变健康评估问卷(HAQ)来模拟生物制剂对疾病关节炎部分的影响,通过使用银屑病面积和严重程度指数(PASI)来衡量银屑病部分的影响。

结果

对于皮肤疾病轻度至中度的 PsA 患者,依那西普与姑息治疗相比,增量成本效益比(ICER)约为 18000 英镑,英夫利昔单抗与依那西普相比,ICER 约为每质量调整生命年(QALY)44000 英镑。阿达木单抗则具有扩展优势。在 20000 英镑/QALY 的阈值下,依那西普具有成本效益的概率为 0.436。对于中度至重度银屑病或皮肤受累程度较低的患者,依那西普也可能具有成本效益。

结论

需要进一步研究以降低模型中多个参数的不确定性,特别是生物制剂被认为有效的时间长度以及治疗期间和治疗后 HAQ 的进展。

相似文献

1
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments for psoriatic arthritis.模拟生物制剂治疗银屑病关节炎的成本效益。
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011 Sep;50 Suppl 4:iv39-iv47. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker245.
2
Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.依那西普、英夫利昔单抗和阿达木单抗治疗银屑病关节炎:系统评价和经济评估。
Health Technol Assess. 2011 Feb;15(10):i-xxi, 1-329. doi: 10.3310/hta15100.
3
Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.依那西普和英夫利昔单抗治疗银屑病关节炎:系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(31):iii-iv, xiii-xvi, 1-239. doi: 10.3310/hta10310.
4
Cost-effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis.英夫利昔单抗治疗活动期和进展性银屑病关节炎的成本效益分析。
Value Health. 2011 Jan;14(1):15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.016.
5
The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis.依那西普和英夫利昔单抗治疗银屑病关节炎患者的成本效益
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007 Nov;46(11):1729-35. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem221.
6
Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.阿达木单抗、依那西普和英夫利昔单抗治疗银屑病关节炎的匹配调整间接比较。
J Med Econ. 2013;16(4):479-89. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2013.768530. Epub 2013 Feb 7.
7
Real-world anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: cost-effectiveness based on number needed to treat to improve health assessment questionnaire.类风湿关节炎、银屑病关节炎和强直性脊柱炎的真实世界抗肿瘤坏死因子治疗:基于改善健康评估问卷所需治疗人数的成本效益
J Rheumatol. 2009 Jul;36(7):1421-8. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.081122. Epub 2009 Jun 1.
8
Estimating the cost and health status consequences of treatment with TNF antagonists in patients with psoriatic arthritis.评估肿瘤坏死因子拮抗剂治疗银屑病关节炎患者的成本及健康状况后果。
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Aug;45(8):1029-38. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kel147. Epub 2006 Jun 16.
9
Systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation of biological therapy for the management of active psoriatic arthritis.系统评价、网络荟萃分析和生物治疗管理活动性银屑病关节炎的经济学评价。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jan 20;15:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-26.
10
Cost per treated patient for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab across adult indications: a claims analysis.依那西普、阿达木单抗和英夫利昔单抗治疗各类成年适应证的患者每人成本:一项理赔分析。
Adv Ther. 2012 Mar;29(3):234-48. doi: 10.1007/s12325-012-0007-y. Epub 2012 Mar 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Identifying characteristics for a cost-effective psoriatic arthritis biomarker test: a development-focused health technology assessment.确定具有成本效益的银屑病关节炎生物标志物检测的特征:一项以开发为重点的卫生技术评估
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2025 May 23;41(1):e29. doi: 10.1017/S0266462325000091.
2
[Not Available].[无可用内容]。
Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2020 Aug 24;7:57-65. doi: 10.33393/grhta.2020.710. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.
3
Relationships between psoriatic arthritis composite measures of disease activity with patient-reported outcomes in phase 3 studies of tofacitinib.
在托法替尼 3 期研究中,银屑病关节炎复合疾病活动指标与患者报告结局的关系。
Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Mar 26;23(1):94. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02474-2.
4
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Biologic Therapy with Ixekizumab Versus Secukinumab in the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis with Concomitant Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis in the UK.在英国,用司库奇尤单抗序贯生物疗法与苏金单抗治疗伴有中度至重度银屑病的活动性银屑病关节炎的成本效益分析。
Pharmacoecon Open. 2020 Dec;4(4):635-648. doi: 10.1007/s41669-020-00202-1.
5
Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab versus other biologics and apremilast in the treatment of active Psoriatic arthritis: a Finnish perspective.司库奇尤单抗与其他生物制剂及阿普米司特治疗活动性银屑病关节炎的成本效益分析:芬兰视角
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Nov 16;16:56. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0162-3. eCollection 2018.
6
Novel Concepts in Psoriatic Arthritis Management: Can We Treat to Target?银屑病关节炎治疗新理念:可否靶向治疗?
Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2018 Sep 18;20(11):71. doi: 10.1007/s11926-018-0781-x.
7
Economic Evaluation of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Adults.度普利尤单抗治疗成人中重度特应性皮炎的经济学评估
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2017 Dec;7(4):493-505. doi: 10.1007/s13555-017-0201-6. Epub 2017 Sep 20.
8
Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments for psoriatic arthritis: can we make better use of patient data registries?评估银屑病关节炎生物治疗的成本效益:我们能否更好地利用患者数据登记处?
Clin Rheumatol. 2017 Aug;36(8):1803-1810. doi: 10.1007/s10067-017-3703-9. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
9
Economic Evaluation of Timely Versus Delayed Use of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis in the US.美国肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂及时使用与延迟使用治疗银屑病关节炎的经济学评估
Rheumatol Ther. 2016 Dec;3(2):305-322. doi: 10.1007/s40744-016-0042-2. Epub 2016 Sep 15.
10
Consensus Decision Models for Biologics in Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Working Party.类风湿性关节炎和银屑病关节炎生物制剂的共识决策模型:多学科工作组的建议
Rheumatol Ther. 2015 Dec;2(2):113-125. doi: 10.1007/s40744-015-0020-0. Epub 2015 Nov 25.