Dipartimento di Medicina Interna e Specialità Mediche - UOC di Reumatologia, "Sapienza" - Università di Roma, Azienda Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161 Rome, Italy.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jan 20;15:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-25.
The economic assessment of treatment options in a chronic and severe disease like Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is crucial to estimate the burden of costs. In particular, the impact of new costly medications such as biologic agents have been studied to figure this important aspect of a multifaceted disease. In a previous observational, longitudinal multicentre cost evaluation study, the results showed that biologic agents are cost-effective. This study was obtained from the real clinical practice and encompassed PsA patients refractory to traditional treatments. Similar data were also obtained from reviews analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). Recently, Cawson et al. performed a systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation of biological therapy for the management of active PsA. The review was conducted to identify relevant, recently published studies and the new trial data were synthesized, via a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), to estimate the relative efficacy of the TNF-α inhibitors in terms of Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) response, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). In particular the analysis showed that, on average, etanercept was the most cost-effective treatment and, at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence willingness-to-pay threshold of between £20,000 to £30,000, etanercept is the preferred option. This study, as a systematic review, has been focused on main RCTs on active PsA treated by biological DMARDs and limitations to this analysis arise from a paucity of data on long-term follow up, as well as radiological progression and long-term safety. These interesting results reflected the important role of biologic agents in the management of PsA, highlighting their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. However, there are some unmet needs for pharmacoeconomic considerations based on prospective and/or on real clinical practice studies, as well as considering all the intriguing aspects of this challenging disease.
在像银屑病关节炎(PsA)这样的慢性和严重疾病中,治疗方案的经济评估对于估计成本负担至关重要。特别是,已经研究了新型昂贵药物(如生物制剂)的影响,以了解这种多方面疾病的重要方面。在之前的一项观察性、纵向多中心成本评估研究中,结果表明生物制剂具有成本效益。这项研究来自真实的临床实践,涵盖了对传统治疗方法耐药的银屑病关节炎患者。类似的数据也从随机对照试验(RCTs)的综述分析中获得。最近,Cawson 等人对生物疗法治疗活动性银屑病关节炎的管理进行了系统评价、网络荟萃分析和经济评估。该综述旨在确定相关的、最近发表的研究,并通过贝叶斯网络荟萃分析(NMA)综合新试验数据,以评估 TNF-α 抑制剂在银屑病关节炎反应标准(PsARC)反应、健康评估问卷(HAQ)评分和银屑病面积和严重程度指数(PASI)方面的相对疗效。特别是,分析表明,依那西普平均来说是最具成本效益的治疗方法,在国家卫生与保健卓越研究所(NICE)的支付意愿阈值为 20,000 至 30,000 英镑之间,依那西普是首选方案。作为一项系统评价,这项研究主要集中在生物 DMARDs 治疗活动性 PsA 的主要 RCT 上,由于缺乏长期随访、影像学进展和长期安全性的数据,因此存在分析局限性。这些有趣的结果反映了生物制剂在治疗银屑病关节炎中的重要作用,突出了其疗效和成本效益。然而,在考虑到这种具有挑战性的疾病的所有有趣方面的情况下,还需要从前瞻性和/或真实临床实践研究中对药物经济学考虑进行进一步研究,以满足一些未满足的需求。