Cholestatic Pruritus Treatments in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the evidence supporting treatment decisions for cholestatic pruritus associated with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). METHODS: Studies that enrolled ≥ 75% participants with PBC or PSC and reported ≥ 1 endpoint(s) related to efficacy, safety, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or other patient-reported outcomes were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Quality of Cohort studies tool for non-RCTs. RESULTS: Thirty-nine publications were identified, covering 42 studies and six treatment classes (including investigational and approved products): anion-exchange resins, antibiotics (rifampicin/derivatives), opiates, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, fibrates, ileal bile acid transporter inhibitors and other agents not categorised in these six classes. Across studies, median sample size was small (n = 18), 20 studies were over 20 years old, 25 followed patients for ≤ 6 weeks, only 25 were RCTs. Pruritus was assessed using several different tools, with inconsistencies in their application. Cholestyramine, considered first-line therapy for moderate-severe cholestatic pruritus, was assessed in six studies (two RCTs) including 56 patients with PBC and 2 with PSC, with evidence of efficacy demonstrated in only three studies, among which, two RCTs were assessed as having a high risk of bias. Findings were similar for other drug classes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consistent and reproducible evidence available on efficacy, impact on HRQoL, and safety of cholestatic pruritus treatments, leaving physicians to rely on clinical experience rather than evidence-based medicine for treatment selection.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoarthritis oral therapies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been performed for oral non-disease-altering osteoarthritis (OA) treatments for well over a decade. During that period the methods for performing these analyses have evolved as pharmacoeconomic methods have advanced, new treatments have been introduced, and the knowledge of associated adverse events (AEs) has improved. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to trace the development of CEAs for oral non-disease-altering treatments in OA. METHODS: A systematic search for CEAs of OA oral treatments was performed of the English-language medical literature using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process, EconLit, and Cochrane. Key requirements for inclusion were that the population described patients with OA or arthritis and that the analysis reported at least one incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Each identified publication was assessed for inclusion. Thirteen characteristics and all AEs appearing in each included CEA were extracted and organized. Reference lists from these CEAs were also searched. A chronology of key CEAs in the field was compiled, noting the characteristics that advanced the state of the art in modeling oral OA treatments. RESULTS: Thirty publications of 28 CEAs were identified and evaluated. Developments in CEAs included an expanded set of comparators that broadened from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) only to NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and opioids. In turn, AEs expanded from gastrointestinal (GI) events to also include cardiovascular (CV) and neurological events. Efficacy, which initially was presumed to be equivalent for all treatments, evolved to treatment-specific efficacies. Decision-tree analyses were generally replaced by Markov models or, occasionally, stochastic or discrete event simulation. Finally, outcomes have progressed from GI-centric measures to also include quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSION: Methods used by CEAs of oral non-disease-altering OA treatments have evolved in response to changing treatments with different safety profiles and efficacies as well as technical advances in the application of decision science to health care.