RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including certolizumab pegol (CZP), are effective treatment options for the management of non-radiographic spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). In the absence of head-to-head comparisons in nr-axSpA, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and indirect treatment comparison (ITC) to better understand the comparative efficacy of CZP vs. other bDMARDs. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in October 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials in patients with nr-axSpA who had failed at least one non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and were treated with bDMARDs. Outcomes of interest included the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and spinal pain score. Comparative efficacy was examined using a series of Bucher ITCs in subgroups matched by prior exposure to bDMARDs, disease duration, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) levels/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) status, and timepoints, to ensure comparability between studies. RESULTS: At 12-16 weeks, treatment with CZP was significantly more likely to achieve ASAS20/40 response and ASDAS-inactive disease status vs. etanercept (ETN), ixekizumab (IXE), and secukinumab (SEC). CZP showed statistically significant improvement in BASDAI, BASFI, and total spine pain score over adalimumab (ADA), ETN, and IXE, and in BASFI over SEC. Among patients with objective signs of inflammation (OSI; elevated CRP levels and/or inflammation on MRI at baseline), CZP had a statistically significant advantage over ETN and SEC (with or without loading dose) in achieving ASAS40, whereas the comparisons with other bDMARDs did not show any statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: In the overall matched population, CZP performed significantly better than most comparators in improving the clinical outcomes. Among patients with OSI, CZP was found to be superior to SEC (in the MRI-/CRP + and MRI + /CRP- subgroups) and ETN (in the MRI + /CRP- subgroup) and it was comparable to golimumab and IXE across the different OSI subgroups.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is the first tumour-agnostic therapy that has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. Tumour-agnostic therapies are indicated for a multitude of tumour types. The economic models supporting reimbursement submissions of tumour-agnostic therapies are complex because of the multitude of indications per model. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of larotrectinib compared with standard of care in patients with cancer with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive tumour types in the Netherlands. METHODS: A previously constructed cost-effectiveness model with a partitioned survival approach was adapted to the Dutch setting, simulating costs and effects of treatment in patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer. The cost-effectiveness model conducts a naïve comparison of larotrectinib to a weighted comparator standard-of-care arm. Dutch specific resource use and costs were implemented and inflated to reflect 2019 euros. The analysis includes a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. RESULTS: Larotrectinib versus Dutch standard of care resulted in 5.61 incremental (QALYs) and 232,260 incremental costs, leading to an incremental cost-effectivenes ratio of 41,424/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reveals a 88% chance of larotrectinib being cost effective compared with the pooled comparator standard-of-care arm at the applicable 80,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost-effectivenes ratio was well below the applicable threshold for diseases with a high burden of disease in the Netherlands (80,000). At this threshold, larotrectinib was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer compared with current standard of care in the Netherlands.
