RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). METHODS: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naïve to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with high management costs, particularly in recurrent cases. Fidaxomicin treatment results in lower recurrence rates than vancomycin and metronidazole, but has higher acquisition costs in Europe and the USA. This systematic literature review summarises economic evaluations (EEs) of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and metronidazole for treatment of CDI. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library) and conference proceedings (ISPOR, ECCMID, ICAAC and IDWeek) were searched for publications reporting EEs of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and/or metronidazole in the treatment of CDI. Reference bibliographies of identified manuscripts were also reviewed. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to the overall population of patients with CDI, as well as in subgroups with severe CDI or recurrent CDI, or those at higher risk of recurrence or mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 27 relevant EEs, conducted from the perspective of 12 different countries, were identified. Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin and/or metronidazole in 14 of 24 EEs (58.3%), vancomycin was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or metronidazole in five of 27 EEs (18.5%) and metronidazole was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or vancomycin in two of 13 EEs (15.4%). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin in most of the EEs evaluating specific patient subgroups. Key cost-effectiveness drivers were cure rate, recurrence rate, time horizon, drug costs and length and cost of hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: In most EEs, fidaxomicin was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus metronidazole and vancomycin in patients with CDI. These results have relevance to clinical practice, given the high budgetary impact of managing CDI and increasing restrictions on healthcare budgets. OTHER: This analysis was initiated and funded by Astellas Pharma Inc.