A real-world economic analysis of biologic therapies for psoriatic arthritis in Italy: results of the CHRONOS observational longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, immune-mediated, spondyloarthropathy characterised by musculoskeletal signs and symptoms with associated joint pain and tenderness. The average worldwide PsA prevalence is 133/100,000, while in the Italian population is 90-420/100,000. Traditionally, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoid, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been used in the treatment of PsA. However, for those patients who are not adequately controlled with conventional therapies, the new biologics compounds represent a valid option. Biologic therapies have been shown to be more effective but also more expensive than conventional systemic treatments. Based on the CHRONOS study, the economic analyses presented in this paper aim to assess the annualised direct costs and the cost-per-responder of biologics in a real-world context assuming the Italian National Health System perspective. METHODS: The economic assessments were carried out on the overall cohort of patients, and on the tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) and the secukinumab subgroup, the most prescribed biologic therapies within the CHRONOS study. RESULTS: The annual economic impact of PsA in the overall group was €12,622, €11,725 in the secukinumab subgroup, and €12,791 in the TNFi subgroup. Biologics absorbed the main expenditure costs in the treatment of PsA accounting for about the 93% of total costs. At 6 months, secukinumab performed better in all the considered outcomes: cost-per-responder according to EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria were €12,661- €28,975, respectively, while they were €13,356 - €33,368 in the overall cohort and €13,138 - €35,166 in the TNFi subgroup. At 12 months secukinumab remained the subgroup with the lowest cost-per-responder ratio in EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria, while TNFi subgroup was the lowest one considered the ACR20. CONCLUSION: Despite some potential methodological limitations, our cost-per-response analysis provides physicians and payers additional insights which can complement the traditional risk-benefit profile assessment and drive treatment decisions.

Implementing a simple pharmacovigilance program to improve reporting of adverse events associated with biologic therapy in rheumatology: Preliminary results from the Calabria Biologics Pharmacovigilance Program (CBPP).

INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing surveillance activities (namely pharmacovigilance) are crucial to favor the early detection of unexpected adverse events (AEs) and/or serious adverse reactions (SAEs). Indeed, spontaneous reporting of AEs has been demonstrated to underestimate the number of events in different clinical settings. Aim of the present study is to report the preliminary data of a Regional (Calabria, Italy) Pharmacovigilance Program (CBPP) aimed at improving AEs' reporting associated with biologics use in rheumatology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a simple, cost-effective pharmacovigilance program based on regular training sessions for physicians (stimulated reporting), periodical phone calls by a clinical pharmacologist aimed at identifying new events and stimulating self-awareness and encouraging reporting to the physician during the subsequent follow-up visit for minor AEs. To test this approach, all consecutive patients undergoing treatment with one biologic agent at eight rheumatology centers during a two-years period were invited to participate. Collected AEs were compared to the number of AEs spontaneously reported for the same molecules in the same centers before starting the protocol. RESULTS: During the study period, 399 patients (245 females; mean age: 58 ± 11 years) were started on treatment with biologics for active RA (n = 211, 52.9%), PsA (n = 119, 29.8%) or AS (n = 69, 17.3%) at eight rheumatology centers. A total of 125 AEs (31.3%) and 9 SAEs (2.3%) were reported during the two-years study period. In the control cohort (comprising 368 consecutive patients started on treatment with bDMARDs during a two-years period before CBPP study) only 42 (11.4%) AEs and no SAEs were reported (p < 0.0001). The most common AEs were injection site reactions and skin disorders. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study provides further evidence of a critical role of active pharmacovigilance in detection, reporting and analysis of AEs in rheumatology.

Old But Good: Modified-Release Prednisone in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Since more than 50 years glucocorticoids represent the milestone in the treatment of inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, many patients with RA present a circadian rhythm in symptoms severity with a significant worsening in the morning, that correlates with cyclic changes in circulating hormones and cytokines. Classical steroid therapy given in the morning fails to intercept this pathophysiological phenomenon. In the last years, a novel formulation of prednisone has been developed in order to better fit these variations, improve efficacy and minimize adverse events (chronotherapy). This modified-release (MR) prednisone is administered in the evening at 10.00 p.m. and absorbed after about 4 hours. METHODS: In this article, we reviewed the recent clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of MR prednisone in RA patients, including two randomized controlled double-blind clinical trials Circadian Administration of Prednisone in Rheumatoid Arthritis - 1 (CAPRA-1) and CAPRA-2 and other nonrandomized observational studies. RESULTS: According to the available evidence, MR prednisone seems effective in ameliorating morning stiffness in RA patients. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the use of MR prednisone in the treatment regimen could be a costeffective choice in a significant proportion of RA patients, particularly in those with a clinical phenotype characterized by morning stiffness or morning recrudescence of pain. With regards to the safety, MR prednisone adverse events profile does not differ from that of IR glucocorticoids.