RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease characterized by itchy, painful, and dry skin. Despite the great number of available therapies, economic evaluations are still needed to provide evidence on their cost efficiency. This research aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (200 mg) compared with dupilumab (300 mg), tralokinumab (300 mg), baricitinib (2 and 4 mg), and upadacitinib (15 and 30 mg) for the treatment of patients with severe AD from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A hybrid model consisting of a decision tree linked to a Markov model was developed to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total years in response and incremental cost-per-QALY gained (willingness-to-pay [WTP] threshold: 25,000/QALY). Adults with severe AD entered the decision tree and response (75% reduction in baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index score, EASI-75) was considered at 16 and 52 weeks. After this time, patients entered the Markov model (remainder of the 10-year time horizon), which consisted of three health states: maintenance with active therapy, subsequent treatment, or death. All costs were presented in 2022 euros (). Additionally, cost per number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated for abrocitinib and dupilumab based on a head-to-head post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Abrocitinib 200 mg was dominant (i.e., lower incremental costs and higher incremental benefit) compared with all studied alternatives (dupilumab 300 mg, tralokinumab 300 mg, baricitinib 2 and 4 mg, upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg) with a QALYs gain of 0.49, 0.60, 0.64, 0.43, 0.45, and 0.08, respectively, and per-person costs savings of 22,097, 24,140, 14,825, 7,116, 12,805, and 45,189, respectively. Considering the WTP threshold, abrocitinib was dominant or cost effective compared with all alternatives for most simulations. Additionally, abrocitinib was dominant compared with all alternatives when evaluating the cost effectiveness over a 5-year time horizon. NNT showed that abrocitinib was dominant versus dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that abrocitinib is a cost-effective therapy compared with other JAK inhibitors and biological therapies from the Spanish NHS perspective.
RESUMEN
Background: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most frequent chronic rheumatic disease in children. If inflammation is not adequately treated, joint damage, long-term disability, and active disease during adulthood can occur. Identifying and implementing early and adequate therapy are critical for improving clinical outcomes. The burden of JIA on affected children, their families, and the healthcare system in Spain has not been adequately assessed. The greatest contribution to direct costs is medication, but other expenses contribute to the consumption of resources, negatively impacting healthcare cost and the economic conditions of affected families. Objective: To assess the direct healthcare, indirect resource utilization, and associated cost of moderate-to-severe JIA in children in routine clinical practice in Spain. Methods: Children were enrolled in this 24-month observational, multicentric, cross-sectional, retrospective study (N = 107) if they had been treated with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), had participated in a previous study (ITACA), and continued to be followed up at pediatric rheumatology units at 3 tertiary Spanish hospitals. Direct costs included medication, specialist and primary care visits, hospitalizations, emergency visits or consultations, surgeries, physiotherapy, and tests. Indirect costs included hospital travel expenses and loss of caregiver working hours. Unitary costs were obtained from official sources (, 2020). Results: Overall, children had inactive disease/low disease activity according to JADAS-71 score and very low functional disability as measured by Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire score. Up to 94.4% of children received treatment, mainly with bDMARDs as monotherapy (84.5%). Among anti-TNFα treatments, adalimumab (47.4%) and etanercept (40.2%) were used in similar proportions. Annual mean (SD) total JIA cost was 7516.40 (5627.30). Average cost of pharmacological treatment was 3021.80 (3956.20), mainly due to biologic therapy 2789.00 (3399.80). Direct annual cost (excluding treatments) was 3654.60 (3899.00). Indirect JIA cost per family was 747.20 (1452.80). Conclusion: JIA causes significant costs to the Spanish healthcare system and affected families. Public costs are partly due to the high cost of biologic treatments, which nevertheless remain an effective long-term treatment, maintaining inactive disease/low disease activity state; a very low functional disability score; and a good quality of life.
RESUMEN
The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the real-world data on the use of tofacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Spain. Sixteen retrospective studies carried out in Spain between 2019 and 2021 have been analyzed, considering patients' characteristics, and treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety. In those studies, approximately 511 patients received tofacitinib during the study period. They were predominantly women (mean age: 48-61 years). The percentage of patients receiving tofacitinib as monotherapy ranged between 20.0% and 67.9%. Only five studies reported the combined use of corticosteroids (42.0-84.5% of patients), with a mean dose varying from 1.8 to 7.2 mg. A wide range of patients (36.0-85.7%) had failed a previous biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug. The most frequent reason for treatment discontinuation was the lack of efficacy, and the most common adverse event described was herpes zoster infection. Real-world studies complement clinical trials by adding efficacy and safety data in real-world settings to the benefit/risk profile of the drug. The profile of RA patients receiving tofacitinib in Spain has similarities with other real-world studies conducted in other countries.
Asunto(s)
Artritis Reumatoide , Pirroles , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Piperidinas , Pirimidinas , Pirroles/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , España/epidemiología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) is actually considered a subgroup of hospital-acquired pneumonia due to the reported high risk of multidrug-resistant pathogens in the USA. Therefore, current American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines suggest a nosocomial antibiotic treatment for HCAP. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence supporting this is contradictory. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre case-control study in Spain, comparing clinical presentation, outcomes and microbial aetiology of HCAP and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients matched by age (±10 years), gender and period of admission (±10 weeks). RESULTS: 476 patients (238 cases, 238 controls) were recruited for 2 years from June 2008. HCAP cases showed significantly more comorbidities (including dysphagia), higher frequency of previous antibiotic use in the preceding month, higher pneumonia severity score and worse clinical status (Charslon and Barthel scores). While microbial aetiology did not differ between the two groups (HCAP and CAP: Streptococcus pneumoniae: 51% vs 55%; viruses: 22% vs 12%; Legionella: 4% vs 9%; Gram-negative bacilli: 5% vs 4%; Pseudomonas aeruginosa: 4% vs 1%), HCAP patients showed worse mortality rates (1-month: HCAP, 12%; CAP 5%; 1-year: HCAP, 24%; CAP, 9%), length of hospital stay (9 vs 7 days), 1-month treatment failure (5.5% vs 1.5%) and readmission rate (18% vs 11%) (p<0.05, each). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a similar clinical presentation, HCAP was more severe due to patients' conditions (comorbidities) and showed worse clinical outcomes. Microbial aetiology of HCAP did not differ from CAP indicating that it is not related to increased mortality and in Spain most HCAP patients do not need nosocomial antibiotic coverage.