Search

Introduction: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that impairs quality of life and could be life-threatening. The aim of this study was to apply a multicriteria decision analysis to assess the value of three long-term prophylactic (LTP) therapies for HAE in Spain. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of 10 experts assessed the value of lanadelumab (subcutaneous use), C1-inhibitor (C1-INH; intravenous), and danazol (orally), using placebo as comparator. We followed the EVIDEM methodology that considers a set of 13 quantitative criteria. The overall estimated value of each intervention was obtained combining the weighting of each criterion with the scoring of each intervention in each criterion. We used two alternative weighting methods: hierarchical point allocation (HPA) and direct rating scale (DRS). A reevaluation of weightings and scores was performed. Results: Lanadelumab obtained higher mean scores than C1-INH and danazol in all criteria, except for the cost of the intervention and clinical practice guidelines. Under the HPA method, the estimated values were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.58) for lanadelumab, 0.47 (95%CI: 0.41-0.53) for C1-INH, and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.24-0.39) for danazol. Similar results were obtained with the DRS method: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.42-0.60), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.40-0.54), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.18-0.37), respectively. The comparative cost of the intervention was the only criterion that contributed negatively to the values of lanadelumab and C1-INH. For danazol, four criteria contributed negatively, mainly comparative safety. Conclusion: Lanadelumab was assessed as a high-value intervention, better than C1-INH and substantially better than danazol for LTP treatment of HAE.

Introduction: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that impairs quality of life and could be life-threatening. The aim of this study was to apply a multicriteria decision analysis to assess the value of three long-term prophylactic (LTP) therapies for HAE in Spain. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of 10 experts assessed the value of lanadelumab (subcutaneous use), C1-inhibitor (C1-INH; intravenous), and danazol (orally), using placebo as comparator. We followed the EVIDEM methodology that considers a set of 13 quantitative criteria. The overall estimated value of each intervention was obtained combining the weighting of each criterion with the scoring of each intervention in each criterion. We used two alternative weighting methods: hierarchical point allocation (HPA) and direct rating scale (DRS). A reevaluation of weightings and scores was performed. Results: Lanadelumab obtained higher mean scores than C1-INH and danazol in all criteria, except for the cost of the intervention and clinical practice guidelines. Under the HPA method, the estimated values were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.58) for lanadelumab, 0.47 (95%CI: 0.41-0.53) for C1-INH, and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.24-0.39) for danazol. Similar results were obtained with the DRS method: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.42-0.60), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.40-0.54), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.18-0.37), respectively. The comparative cost of the intervention was the only criterion that contributed negatively to the values of lanadelumab and C1-INH. For danazol, four criteria contributed negatively, mainly comparative safety. Conclusion: Lanadelumab was assessed as a high-value intervention, better than C1-INH and substantially better than danazol for LTP treatment of HAE.

Introduction: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that impairs quality of life and could be life-threatening. The aim of this study was to apply a multicriteria decision analysis to assess the value of three long-term prophylactic (LTP) therapies for HAE in Spain. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of 10 experts assessed the value of lanadelumab (subcutaneous use), C1-inhibitor (C1-INH; intravenous), and danazol (orally), using placebo as comparator. We followed the EVIDEM methodology that considers a set of 13 quantitative criteria. The overall estimated value of each intervention was obtained combining the weighting of each criterion with the scoring of each intervention in each criterion. We used two alternative weighting methods: hierarchical point allocation (HPA) and direct rating scale (DRS). A reevaluation of weightings and scores was performed. Results: Lanadelumab obtained higher mean scores than C1-INH and danazol in all criteria, except for the cost of the intervention and clinical practice guidelines. Under the HPA method, the estimated values were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.58) for lanadelumab, 0.47 (95%CI: 0.41-0.53) for C1-INH, and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.24-0.39) for danazol. Similar results were obtained with the DRS method: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.42-0.60), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.40-0.54), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.18-0.37), respectively. The comparative cost of the intervention was the only criterion that contributed negatively to the values of lanadelumab and C1-INH. For danazol, four criteria contributed negatively, mainly comparative safety. Conclusion: Lanadelumab was assessed as a high-value intervention, better than C1-INH and substantially better than danazol for LTP treatment of HAE.

[Abstract] Objective. The aim of this study was to establish guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies for health professionals involved in the management of patients with RA, AS and PsA. Methods. Recommendations were established via consensus by a panel of experts in rheumatology and hospital pharmacy, based on analysis of available scientific evidence obtained from four systematic reviews and on the clinical experience of panellists. The Delphi method was used to evaluate these recommendations, both between panellists and among a wider group of rheumatologists. Results. Previous concepts concerning better management of RA, AS and PsA were reviewed and, more specifically, guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies used to treat these diseases were formulated. Recommendations were made with the aim of establishing a plan for when and how to taper biologic treatment in patients with these diseases. Conclusion. The recommendations established herein aim not only to provide advice on how to improve the risk:benefit ratio and efficiency of such treatments, but also to reduce variability in daily clinical practice in the use of biologic therapies for rheumatic diseases.

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) was superior to adalimumab (ADA), as monotherapy, in reducing signs and symptoms of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when methotrexate (MTX) treatment is poorly tolerated or inappropriate. The aim of the study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of TCZ vs ADA in these patients. Methods: Economic evaluation of the cost per response or remission of TCZ vs ADA from ADACTA (time horizon: 24 weeks). Clinical response criteria ACR or disease remission criteria, DAS28. Perspective: National Health System. The costs included (acquisition, administration and monitoring of medicines; € 2012) were obtained from Spanish sources. Simple univariate sensitivity analyzes were performed. Results: ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates with TCZ and ADA were obtained in 65% and 49.4% (p <0.01), 47.2% and 27.8% (p <0.01); and 32.5% and 17.9% (p <0.01) of patients, respectively. DAS28 remission occurred in 39.9% and 10.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The cost per response was lower with TCZ than with ADA (ACR20: € 8,105 and € 11,553; ACR50: € 11,162 and € 20,529; ACR70: € 16,211 and € 31,882) respectively. The cost of DAS28 remission was € 13,204 and € 54,352, respectively. Treatment with TCZ was dominant (more effective, with lower costs vs ADA) in all scenarios analyzed. Conclusions: According to this analysis, in Spain TCZ monotherapy is an efficient strategy vs ADA for treating RA patients intolerant to MTX or in which there is inappropriate response., Fundamento: Tocilizumab (TCZ) fue superior a adalimumab (ADA) en monoterapia en la reducción de los signos y síntomas de la artritis reumatoide del adulto (AR) en pacientes intolerantes o con respuesta inadecuada a metotrexato (MTX). El objetivo del estudio fue analizar el coste-efectividad de TCZ vs ADA en estos pacientes. Métodos: Evaluación económica del coste por respuesta o remisión con TCZ vs ADA a partir del estudio ADACTA (horizonte temporal: 24 semanas). Criterios de respuesta clínica ACR o de remisión de la enfermedad, índice DAS28. Ámbito: Sistema Nacional de Salud. Los costes incluidos (adquisición, administración y monitorización de los medicamentos en € de 2012) se obtuvieron de fuentes españolas. Se efectuaron análisis de sensibilidad simples univariantes. Resultados: Las tasas de respuesta ACR20, ACR50 y ACR70 con TCZ y ADA se obtuvieron en el 65% y 49,4% (p <0,01); 47,2% y 27,8% (p <0,01); y en el 32,5% y 17,9% (p <0,01) de los pacientes, respectivamente. La remisión DAS28 se produjo en el 39,9% y 10,5%, respectivamente (p <0,0001). El coste por respuesta fue menor con TCZ que con ADA (ACR20: 8.105 y 11.553 €; ACR50: 11.162 y 20.529 €; ACR70: 16.211 y 31.882 €) respectivamente. El coste de la remisión DAS28 fue de 13.204 € y 54.352 € respectivamente. En todos los escenarios el tratamiento con TCZ tuvo mayor eficacia y menores costes que con ADA. Conclusiones: Según este análisis, en España la monoterapia con TCZ es una estrategia eficiente frente a ADA para el tratamiento de los pacientes con AR intolerantes o con respuesta inadecuada a MTX.