The effects of anti-TNF-α biologics on insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An update systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Increasing evidence demonstrates a link between the chronic inflammatory state in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the development of insulin resistance. It is thought that anti-TNF-α biologic therapy may improve insulin sensitivity and ameliorate insulin resistance by the downregulation of inflammatory cytokines, however, pre-clinical and clinical studies have yielded conflicting results. A meta-analysis on this topic is necessary to summarize current evidence and generate hypotheses for future research. METHODS: Literature search was performed in four databases, namely PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library, from inception till April 9, 2023, querying studies reporting peripheral insulin resistance with and without anti-TNF-α use in patients with RA. Peripheral insulin resistance or sensitivity was quantified by the Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA) index or the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI) respectively. The difference in insulin resistance or sensitivity between the treatment and control group was calculated using standardized mean difference (SMD) for the purposes of the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve articles were reviewed, with 10 longitudinal studies with a total of 297 patients included in the meta-analysis. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) from baseline HOMA was -0.82 (95% CI: -1.38 to -0.25) suggesting significant beneficial effects of anti-TNF-α therapy on insulin resistance. CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports the significant clinical efficacy of anti-TNF-α biologics in alleviating insulin resistance and improving insulin sensitivity in patients with active RA.

A Systematic Review of the Reliability and Validity of the Patient Activation Measure Tool.

Patient activation, broadly defined as the ability of individuals to manage their health and navigate the healthcare system effectively, is crucial for achieving positive health outcomes. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM), a popularly used tool, was developed to assess this vital component of health care. This review is the first to systematically examine the validity of the PAM, as well as study its reliability, factor structure, and validity across various populations. Following the PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines, a search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, from inception to 1 October 2023, using combinations of keywords related to patient activation and the PAM. The inclusion criteria were original quantitative or mixed methods studies focusing on PAM-13 or its translated versions and containing data on psychometric properties. Out of 3007 abstracts retrieved, 39 studies were included in the final review. The PAM has been extensively studied across diverse populations and geographical regions, including the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Most studies looked at populations with chronic conditions. Only two studies applied the PAM to community-dwelling individuals and found support for its use. Studies predominantly showed a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.80) for the PAM. Most studies supported a unidimensional construct of patient activation, although cultural differences influenced the factor structure in some cases. Construct validity was established through correlations with health behaviors and outcomes. Despite its strengths, there is a need for further research, particularly in exploring content validity and differential item functioning. Expanding the PAM's application to more diverse demographic groups and community-dwelling individuals could enhance our understanding of patient activation and its impact on health outcomes.

Comparative policy analysis of national rare disease funding policies in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases pose immense challenges for healthcare systems due to their low prevalence, associated disabilities, and attendant treatment costs. Advancements in gene therapy, such as treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), have introduced novel therapeutic options, but the high costs, exemplified by Zolgensma® at US$2.1 million, present significant financial barriers. This scoping review aimed to compare the funding approaches for rare disease treatments across high-performing health systems in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), aiming to identify best practices and areas for future research. METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley and ensuing recommendations, a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and grey literature from health department websites and leading national organizations dedicated to rare diseases in these countries was conducted. Countries selected for comparison were high-income countries with advanced economies and high-performing health systems: Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the UK, and the US. The inclusion criteria focused on studies detailing drug approval processes, reimbursement decisions and funding mechanisms, and published from 2010 to 2024. RESULTS: Based on a thorough review of 18 published papers and grey literature, various strategies are employed by countries to balance budgetary constraints and access to rare disease treatments. Australia utilizes the Life Saving Drugs Program and risk-sharing agreements. Singapore depends on the Rare Disease Fund, which matches public donations. South Korea's National Health Insurance Service covers specific orphan drugs through risk-sharing agreements. The UK relies on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to evaluate treatments for cost-effectiveness, supported by the Innovative Medicines Fund. In the US, a combination of federal and state programs, private insurance and non-profit support is used. CONCLUSION: Outcome-based risk-sharing agreements present a practical solution for managing the financial strain of costly treatments. These agreements tie payment to actual treatment efficacy, thereby distributing financial risk and promoting ongoing data collection. Countries should consider adopting and expanding these agreements to balance immediate expenses with long-term benefits, ultimately ensuring equitable access to crucial treatments for patients afflicted by rare diseases.