Clinical and economic burden of severe asthma among US patients treated with biologic therapies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may remain uncontrolled despite biologic therapy in addition to standard therapy, but this disease burden has not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic burden in a US national sample. METHODS: Patients who have severe asthma with indicated biologic treatment (earliest use = index date) were selected from the MarketScan database between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2018. Inclusion criteria were continuous enrollment for 12 months postindex with a minimum of 2 biologic fills, greater than or equal to 12 years of age, evidence of medium- to high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonist combination before the index, and absence of other respiratory diagnoses and malignancies. Disease exacerbations (used to classify asthma control), health care costs, and treatment characteristics were reported during the 12-month postindex period. RESULTS: The sample included 3262 biologic patients; 88% with anti-immunoglobulin E therapy (omalizumab) and 12% non-anti-immunoglobulin E (reslizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab). The mean age was 49 (±15) years; 64% were women. Prescriptions included inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonist (82%), systemic corticosteroids (76%), and leukotriene receptor antagonists (68%). Notably, 63% of patients presented greater than or equal to 1 asthma exacerbation (mean 1.3 per patient/year). Furthermore, 35% of patients were categorized as having controlled asthma, whereas 28% were suboptimally controlled and 29% were uncontrolled. Patients with uncontrolled disease had higher all-cause and asthma-related costs ($69,206 and $45,693, respectively) than patients with suboptimally controlled ($59,407 and $40,793, respectively) or controlled disease ($53,083 and $38,393, respectively). Furthermore, 62% of newly treated patients were persistent with their index biologic. CONCLUSION: Biologic therapies are effective in reducing exacerbations, but a substantial proportion of patients with severe asthma treated with current biologics continue to experience uncontrolled disease, highlighting a remaining unmet need for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.

One-year direct costs of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and its predictive factors: data from the Moroccan RBSMR registry.

The aim of the study was to estimate the annual direct costs of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to establish possible factors associated with those costs. The main data source was the Moroccan registry of biological therapies in rheumatic diseases (RBSMR Registry). We included patients with available 1-year data. Variables related to socio-economic status, disease and biological therapy were collected. Direct costs included prices of biologics, costs of infusions, and subcutaneous injections. Differences in costs across groups were tested by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Correlations analysis was performed in search of factors associated with high costs. We included 197 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The mean age was 52.3 ± 11 years, with female predominance 86.8%. Receiving one of the following therapies: rituximab (n = 132), tocilizumab (n = 37), or TNF-blockers (n = 28). Median one-year direct costs per patient were €1665 [€1472-€9879]. The total annual direct costs were € 978,494. Rituximab, constituted 25.7% of the total annual budget. TNF-blockers and tocilizumab represented 27.3% and 47% of this overall budget, respectively. Although the costs were not significantly different in terms of gender or level of study, the insurance type significantly affected the cost estimation. A positive correlation was found between the annual direct cost and body mass index (r = 0.15, p = 0.04). In Morocco, a developing country, the annual direct costs of biological therapy are high. Our results may contribute to the development of strategies for better governance of these costs.

Predicting response to anti-TNFα therapy among patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA): results from BSRBR-AS.

OBJECTIVES: While many axSpA patients, eligible to receive anti-TNFα therapy, derive benefit when prescribed them, some patients do not. The current study aims to identify modifiable targets to improve outcome as well as non-modifiable targets that identify groups less likely to derive benefit. METHODS: The BSRBR-AS is a prospective cohort study of axSpA patients who, at recruitment, were naïve to biologic therapy. Those in the 'biologic' sub-cohort commenced their first anti-TNFα therapy at recruitment or during follow-up. Prior to commencement, information was collected on socio-economic, clinical and patient-reported factors. Outcome was assessed according to ASAS20, ASAS40, ASDAS reduction and achieving a moderate/inactive ASDAS disease state. RESULTS: 335 participants commenced their first anti-TNFα therapy and were followed up at a median of 14 (inter-quartile range 12-17) weeks. Response varied between 33% and 52% according to criteria used. Adverse socio-economic factors, fewer years in education predicted lower likelihood of response across outcome measures as did not working full-time. Co-morbidities and poor mental health were clinical and patient-reported factors, respectively, associated with lack of response. The models, particularly those using ASDAS, were good at predicting those who did not respond (negative predictive value (NPV) 77%). CONCLUSION: Some factors predicting non-response (such as mental health) are modifiable but many (such as social/economic factors) are not modifiable in clinic. They do, however, identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from biologic therapy alone. Priority should focus on how these patients receive the benefits that many derive from such therapies.

A Critical Look at the Efficacy and Costs of Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a highly prevalent disease that results in significant healthcare-related costs as well as costs to society with lost productivity and time. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of patients who suffer with this disease will not find relief from current standard of care medications and surgery. With ongoing efforts to understand the pathophysiology of CRSwNP has come the introduction of monoclonal antibodies, or "biologics," targeting specific elements of the inflammatory pathway in CRSwNP. Despite efficacy, these come at significant cost and, to date, no studies on the cost-efficacy of these biologics in CRSwNP have been published. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple studies have now demonstrated efficacy for biologics in the treatment of CRSwNP as a primary indication. However, the gains in quality of life and objective measures, while consistent, are small and, arguably, the clinical significance is still unclear. In addition, the high cost of these medications may be hard to justify when evaluated in cost-efficacy studies against standard of care therapy in CRSwNP. Furthermore, while the current literature is most robust in showing the benefit of the biologics in asthma, it does not fully support cost-efficacy for biologics. This review evaluates the current literature regarding efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of CRSwNP and considers this efficacy in light of the cost implications to individuals and society.

Providing cost-effective care for food allergy.

OBJECTIVE: To review the cost-effectiveness of food allergy management strategies. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTIONS: A narrative review and synthesis of literature identified using a PubMed search of relevant articles describing cost-effectiveness evaluations of food allergy management. RESULTS: Screening at-risk infants for peanut allergy carries risk of overdiagnosis and is not cost-effective. Evidence suggests that cost-effective care could be better optimized by minimizing delay in oral food challenges for eligible patients, clarifying the role of precautionary allergen labeling, incorporating patient-preference sensitive care in activation of emergency medical services for resolved allergic reactions, and considering value-based pricing and school-supply models for epinephrine. Finally, the annual value-based cost (willingness to pay [WTP] $100,000/quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of peanut immunotherapy has been estimated to be between $1568 and $6568 for epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) and between $1235 and $5235 for probiotic with peanut oil immunotherapy (POIT), with each therapy showing more favorable cost-effectiveness with greater improvements in health utility, particularly if sustained unresponsiveness can be achieved. CONCLUSION: Many aspects of food allergy management are not cost-effective, and recent evaluations suggest a greater role for incorporating patient and family preferences into guideline-based and traditionally reflexive management decisions. Caregiver understanding of food allergy screening tradeoffs is critical, given that screening children before allergen exposure has significant costs and results in overdiagnosis, especially when oral food challenges are omitted from diagnostic algorithms. Cost-effectiveness analysis can help to identify important decision levers in patient management across a wide range of topics. Further research is needed to better understand health state utilities of specific patient populations.

A call for cost-effectiveness analysis for biologic therapies in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the need for cost-effectiveness analysis of biologic therapies in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). DATA SOURCES: Clinical trials of monoclonal antibodies (omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab and dupilumab) for nasal polyposis or chronic rhinosinusitis published on PubMed. STUDY SELECTIONS: Clinical trials of biologic therapies in CRS and nasal polyposis. RESULTS: No cost-effectiveness analyses of biologic therapies in CRS have been performed. CONCLUSION: As more clinical trials of biologic therapies for CRS are conducted, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analysis. Future analyses should consider these therapies as part of medical therapeutic options compared with surgery. To increase generalizability, analyses should include samples from allergy and primary care clinics rather than only otolaryngology clinics.

Persistence rates and medical costs of biological therapies for psoriasis treatment in Japan: a real-world data study using a claims database.

BACKGROUND: Biological therapies (BTs) including infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADL), secukinumab (SCK) and ustekinumab (UST) are approved in Japan for the treatment of psoriasis. Although the persistence rates and medical costs of BTs treatment have been investigated in multiple foreign studies in recent years, few such studies have been conducted in Japan and the differences between patients who adhered to treatment and those who did not have not been reported. This study is aimed at investigating the persistence rates and medical costs of BTs in the treatment of psoriasis in Japan, using the real-world data from a large-scale claims database. METHODS: Claims data from the JMDC database (August 2009 to December 2016) were used for this analysis. Patient data were extracted using the ICD10 code for psoriasis and claims records of BT injections. Twelve-month and 24-month persistence rates of BTs were estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodology, and 12-month-medical costs before and after BT initiation were compared between persistent and non-persistent patient groups at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 205 psoriasis patients treated with BTs (BT-naïve patients: 177) were identified. The 12-month/24-month persistence rates for ADL, IFX, SCK, and UST in BT-naïve patients were 46.8% ± 16.6%/46.8 ± 16.6%, 53.0% ± 14.9%/41.0% ± 15.5%, 55.4%/55.4% (95% CI not available) and 79.4% ± 9.9%/71.9% ± 12.2%, respectively. Statistically significant differences in persistence were found among different BT treatments, and UST was found to have the highest persistence rate. The total medical costs during the 12 months after BT initiation in BT-naïve patients were (in 1000 Japanese Yen): 2218 for ADL, 3409 for IFX, 465 for SCK, 2824 for UST (average: 2828). Compared with the 12-month persistent patient group, the total medical costs in the persistent group was higher (Δ:+ 118), but for some medications such as IFX or UST cost increases were lower for persistent patients. CONCLUSIONS: UST was found to have the highest persistence rate among all BTs for psoriasis treatment in Japan. The 12-month medical costs after BT initiation in the persistent patient group may not have increased as much as in the non-persistent patient group for some medications.

Do Biologic Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis Offset Treatment-Related Resource Utilization and Cost? A Review of the Literature and an Instrumental Variable Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: One justification for using expensive biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been that it can reduce future healthcare utilization such as joint surgeries and physician visits. However, the evidence to support this assertion is unclear. We conducted a review of the literature for studies which have analyzed the trends in resource use of RA patients, and then undertook a retrospective observational analysis of a Canadian administrative database using instrumental variable methods. RECENT FINDINGS: Our review found a trend in reduced resource utilization prior to the introduction of biologics and no evidence that biologic therapies have specifically contributed to this reduction. Our observational analysis, which overcame some of the epidemiological challenges with determining the influence of biologics on resource utilization, found a possible reduction in other medications but possible increases rather than decreases in physician visits and hospitalizations. However, our sample was not sufficiently large to make definitive conclusions. Over 15 years since the introduction of biologics for RA, no evidence exists supporting the assumption that biologic therapies reduce future healthcare utilization. While such a question is challenging to generate evidence for, and so an absence of evidence does not suggest that the hypothesis is incorrect, an instrumental variable analysis using sufficient data could provide definitive evidence.

Treatment patterns and costs for anti-TNFα biologic therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data regarding anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) biologic therapy use in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are limited; therefore, we described treatment patterns and costs of anti-TNFα therapy in PsA patients in the United States. METHODS: PsA patients (N = 990) aged ≥18 years who initiated anti-TNFα therapy were selected from MarketScan claims databases (10/1/2009 to 9/30/2010). Number of patients on first- (n = 881), second- (n = 72), or third- or greater (n = 37) line of anti-TNFα therapy, persistence, time-to-switch or modification, pharmacy and medical costs (measured per patient per month [PPPM]) for each line of therapy were observed during the 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: PsA patients receiving only one line of anti-TNFα therapy remained on first-line for ~17 months while those who switched to second- or third- or greater persisted on first-line for ~11 to 12 months, respectively. Time to first-line modification was longer for patients who switched to third- or greater line therapy (7 months) than those who did not switch or switched to second-line (range, ~2 to 4 months). Time-to-switch and time to first-line modification was progressively shorter with each line of therapy for patients who received third- or greater line. PPPM medical costs were higher for patients who did not switch ($322) than those who switched to second- ($167) or third- or greater ($217) line. PPPM pharmacy costs were greater for patients with third- or greater line therapy ($2539) than those who did not switch ($1985) or switched to second-line ($2045). CONCLUSION: While the majority of patients received only one line of anti-TNFα therapy, a subset of patients switched to multiple lines of therapy during the 3-year follow-up period. Persistence and therapy modifications differed between these patients and those receiving only one line. Overall medical costs were highest for patients who did not switch, and pharmacy costs increased as patients switched to each new line of therapy.

Commercial-scale biotherapeutics manufacturing facility for plant-made pharmaceuticals.

Rapid, large-scale manufacture of medical countermeasures can be uniquely met by the plant-made-pharmaceutical platform technology. As a participant in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Blue Angel project, the Caliber Biotherapeutics facility was designed, constructed, commissioned and released a therapeutic target (H1N1 influenza subunit vaccine) in <18 months from groundbreaking. As of 2015, this facility was one of the world's largest plant-based manufacturing facilities, with the capacity to process over 3500 kg of plant biomass per week in an automated multilevel growing environment using proprietary LED lighting. The facility can commission additional plant grow rooms that are already built to double this capacity. In addition to the commercial-scale manufacturing facility, a pilot production facility was designed based on the large-scale manufacturing specifications as a way to integrate product development and technology transfer. The primary research, development and manufacturing system employs vacuum-infiltrated Nicotiana benthamiana plants grown in a fully contained, hydroponic system for transient expression of recombinant proteins. This expression platform has been linked to a downstream process system, analytical characterization, and assessment of biological activity. This integrated approach has demonstrated rapid, high-quality production of therapeutic monoclonal antibody targets, including a panel of rituximab biosimilar/biobetter molecules and antiviral antibodies against influenza and dengue fever.

Dealing with the high cost of biological therapies: developing and implementing a biological therapy prioritization protocol for ankylosing spondylitis patients in a tertiary hospital.

OBJECTIVE: In January 2011, a biological therapies commission was created in our hospital to fully address the management of biological drugs. A biological therapy prioritization protocol was developed for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients. Here, we describe it and report on its economic impact to illustrate how we are optimizing the use of these expensive new drugs. METHODS: The biological therapies commission established several procedures for the rational use of biological drugs such as cost-efficiency therapeutic protocols, pharmacovigilance, and therapeutic drug monitoring programs. The AS protocol was based on clinical and economic aspects. We estimated the economic impact of the protocol by comparing the cost of treating AS patients with biological drugs in the pre-commission (2009 - 2010) vs. post-commission period (2011 - 2013). AS patients treated with adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN) or infliximab (IFX) for at least 6 months in the 2009 - 2013 period were included. RESULTS: 107 patients were included. In the pre-commission period, total expenses increased by +30,944 Euro (+4%). After protocol implementation, total expenses decreased by 11,441 Euro (-1%) during 2011, and by an additional 36,781 Euro (-4%) and 53,872 Euro (-8%) in 2012 and 2013, respectively. In the 2010 - 2013 period the cost of biological therapy per patient-year decreased by 869 €, suggesting the positive effects of the biological therapy prioritization protocol instauration. CONCLUSION: We describe the establishment of a multidisciplinary biological therapy commission to optimize the use of biological therapies. We illustrate its work in developing a protocol for the management of AS patients with such therapies. We show that after 3-years of implementation, the biological therapy prioritization protocol allowed us to steadily decrease the direct cost of biological drug therapies per patient, up to 869 Euro.

A nurse-led rheumatology clinic versus rheumatologist-led clinic in monitoring of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis undergoing biological therapy: a cost comparison study in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for rheumatology nursing management of chronic inflammatory arthritis (CIA) from European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) states that nurses should take part in the monitoring patients' disease and therapy in order to achieve cost savings. The aim of the study was to compare the costs of rheumatology care between a nurse-led rheumatology clinic (NLC), based on person-centred care (PCC), versus a rheumatologist-led clinic (RLC), in monitoring of patients with CIA undergoing biological therapy. METHODS: Patients with CIA undergoing biological therapy (n = 107) and a Disease Activity Score of 28 ≤ 3.2 were randomised to follow-up by either NLC or RLC. All patients met the rheumatologist at inclusion and after 12 months. In the intervention one of two annual monitoring visits in an RLC was replaced by a visit to an NLC. The primary outcome was total annual cost of rheumatology care. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients completed the RCT at the 12 month follow-up. Replacing one of the two annual rheumatologist monitoring visits by a nurse-led monitoring visit, resulted in no additional contacts to the rheumatology clinic, but rather a decrease in the use of resources and a reduction of costs. The total annual rheumatology care costs including fixed monitoring, variable monitoring, rehabilitation, specialist consultations, radiography, and pharmacological therapy, generated € 14107.7 per patient in the NLC compared with € 16274.9 in the RCL (p = 0.004), giving a € 2167.2 (13 %) lower annual cost for the NLC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CIA and low disease activity or in remission undergoing biological therapy can be monitored with a reduced resource use and at a lower annual cost by an NLC, based on PCC with no difference in clinical outcomes. This could free resources for more intensive monitoring of patients early in the disease or patients with high disease activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as a clinical trial at the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01071447). Registration date: October 8, 2009.

Dose Modification in Biologic Therapy for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: A Descriptive Analysis in a Clinical Practice Setting.

INTRODUCTION: In biologic therapy, dose modification in carefully selected patients when psoriasis is in remission could reduce treatment costs and the risks associated with drug exposure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, descriptive, crosssectional study, performed in January 2014, of 112 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who had been on biologic therapy for at least 6 months. The therapeutic objective in all cases was to achieve and maintain a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75). All the patients had started treatment with the standard regimen. During treatment, the dose had been reduced in patients who achieved the therapeutic objective and escalated in those who failed to respond adequately to standard doses. RESULTS: At the time of the study, 42.9% of the patients were receiving the standard dose, 50% were on a reduced dose, and 7.1% were on an escalated regimen. The agent with which the dose was most often reduced was adalimumab (57.7%), and the agents with which therapy was most often escalated were ustekinumab (17.9%) and infliximab (12.5%). Patients who received reduced doses had significantly longer-standing disease (P=.049) and longer treatment duration with the same biologic agent (P=.009). In the group that did not fulfill the criteria for dose reduction, the proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis was significantly higher (P=.023). Cost savings were as follows: 21.5% with adalimumab, 13.8% with etanercept, .9% with ustekinumab, and .55% with infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with longer-standing disease and longer treatment duration with the same biologic agent were significantly more likely to be candidates for dose reduction. The proportion of patients with psoriatic arthritis was greater in the group of patients who did not fulfill the conditions for dose reduction. The overall cost saving achieved using the dose modification algorithm described in this study was 13%. Controlled studies are needed to define the profile of the patients best suited for dose reduction strategies without loss of treatment efficacy.

Cost-effectiveness of competing strategies for management of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is an important cause of morbidity and healthcare costs, and is characterized by high rates of disease recurrence. The cost-effectiveness of newer treatments for recurrent CDI has not been examined, yet would be important to inform clinical practice. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost effectiveness of competing strategies for recurrent CDI. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing 4 treatment strategies for first-line treatment of recurrent CDI in a population with a median age of 65 years: metronidazole, vancomycin, fidaxomicin, and fecal microbiota transplant (FMT). We modeled up to 2 additional recurrences following the initial recurrence. We assumed FMT delivery via colonoscopy as our base case, but conducted sensitivity analyses based on different modes of delivery. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: At our base case estimates, initial treatment of recurrent CDI using FMT colonoscopy was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17 016 relative to oral vancomycin. Fidaxomicin and metronidazole were both dominated by FMT colonoscopy. On sensitivity analysis, FMT colonoscopy remained the most cost-effective strategy at cure rates >88.4% and CDI recurrence rates <14.9%. Fidaxomicin required a cost <$1359 to meet our cost-effectiveness threshold. In clinical settings where FMT is not available or applicable, the preferred strategy appears to be initial treatment with oral vancomycin. CONCLUSIONS: In this decision analysis examining treatment strategies for recurrent CDI, we demonstrate that FMT colonoscopy is the most cost-effective initial strategy for management of recurrent CDI.

Inequities in access to biologic and synthetic DMARDs across 46 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated access to biologic and synthetic disease modifying drugs (bDMARDs and sDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across Europe. METHODS: A cross-sectional study at national level was performed in 49 European countries. A questionnaire was sent to one expert, addressing the number of approved and reimbursed bDMARDs and sDMARDs, prices and co-payments, as well as acceptability of bDMARDs (barriers). Data on socio-economic welfare (gross domestic product per capita (GDP), health expenditure, income) were retrieved from web-based sources. Data on health status of RA patients were retrieved from an observational study. Dimensions of access (availability, affordability and acceptability) were correlated with the country's welfare and RA health status. RESULTS: In total, 46 countries (94%) participated. Six countries did not reimburse any of the five sDMARDs surveyed, and in ten countries no bDMARDs were reimbursed. While the price of annual treatment with an average sDMARD was never higher than GPD, the price of one year treatment with a bDMARD exceeded GPD in 26 countries. Perceived barriers for access to bDMARDs were mainly found among financial and administrative restrictions. All dimensions of access were positively correlated with the country's economic welfare (coefficients 0.69 to 0.86 for overall access scores). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA in lower income European countries have less access to bDMARDs and sDMARDs, with particularly striking unaffordability of bDMARDs in some of these countries. When accepting that sDMARDs and bDMARDs are equally needed across countries to treat RA, our data point to inequities in access to pharmacological treatment for RA in Europe.

A randomized controlled trial of larval therapy for the debridement of leg ulcers: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open, observer blind, parallel group study.

It has been known for centuries that the application of larvae is useful to heal certain wounds by facilitating debridement of necrotic tissue,(1) yet the efficacy of larval therapy continues to be debatable. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of a larval therapy dressing (BioFOAM) with a standard debridement technique (Purilon gel; hydrogel) in terms of time to debridement of venous (VLU) or mixed arterial/venous (MLU) leg ulcers. Data analyses were conducted on 88 subjects. Sixty-four subjects completed the full study. Of these, 31 of the 32 (96.9%) patients who completed treatment in the larvae arm debrided fully, compared with 11 of the 32 (34.4%) patients who completed the hydrogel arm. In addition, 42 (48%) ulcers fully debrided within the 21-day intervention phase, 31 (67.4%) from the larvae arm (n = 46), and 11 (26.2%) from the hydrogel arm (n = 42), which was statistically significant (p = 0.001) in support of larvae. A statistically significant difference was also observed between treatment arms with regard to numbers of dressing changes during the intervention phase of the study (p < 0.001) in that subjects in the larvae arm required significantly fewer dressing changes(mean = 2.83) than those in the hydrogel arm (mean = 5.40). There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical condition of the wound bed and surrounding skin by intervention. Subjects in the larvae arm experienced more ulcer-related pain or discomfort than subjects in the hydrogel arm (p < 0.001). This study provided good evidence to show that larval therapy, in the form of a BioFOAM dressing, debrided VLU and MLU considerably more quickly than a hydrogel, although the possibility of resloughing should be closely monitored.

The Inflation Reduction Act: Implications for Medicare spending and access to biologic therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma.

KEY POINTS: In 2021, Medicare spending on biologics was $926 million in Part B (FFS) and $1.3 billion in Part D (FFS/MA). Between 2017 and 2021, annual Medicare spending on biologics increased by approximately 200%. Between 2023 and 2025, Medicare Part D OOP costs for biologics will decrease by an estimated 50%-60%.

Application and commercialization of nematodes.

While nematodes are most commonly known for their negative impact on plants, animals, and humans, there are a number of species which are commercially explored. This review highlights some of the most important success stories for the application of nematodes. They are used as bioindicators in ecological and toxicity studies, as model organisms for elucidating fundamental biological questions and for high throughput screening of drugs. Besides these indirect uses, direct applications include the use of Beddingia siricidicola against a major forest pest and the commercialization of Steinernema, Heterorhabditis, and Phasmarhabditis as biological pest control products. New directions for the commercialization of nematodes are the use as living food, specifically loaded with essential nutrients for various fish and shrimp larvae. Even human parasites or closely related species have been successfully used for curing autoimmune disorders and are currently in the process of being developed as drugs. With the striving development of life sciences, we are likely to see more applications for nematodes in the future. A prerequisite is that we continue to explore the vast number of yet undiscovered nematode species.

Cost-effectiveness of biological therapy compared with methotrexate in the treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Colombia.

The objectives of the study are to develop a cost-effectiveness model comparing biological therapy (BT) with methotrexate (MTX) alone, in the treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), combining clinical and quality-of-life data from international trials with local costs and local epidemiological data. We designed a six-month cycle Markov model with five functional states, based on Health Assessment Questionnaire, with patients initiating treatment in any of the predefined states, based on a sample of 150 local RA patients. Simulations ran for 10 and 20 years, and for the whole life span. Utilities, in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), were taken from international literature. Discount rate was 3 % for costs and utilities. We calculated direct and indirect costs using a combination of international and local data. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). ICERs in euros per QALY were 143,072 for 10 years; 139,332 for 20 years; and 137,712 for the whole life span. Total costs with MTX were lower than with BT, despite higher out of pocket, productivity, and complication costs. Under conventional thresholds, and for the "average" RA patient, BT would not be cost-effective in Colombia. BT compared to MTX provides more QALYs, but at a high cost. When ICERs were estimated for Colombia, BT would not be cost-effective. We propose different thresholds for different conditions, perhaps prioritizing chronic diseases that lead to disability.

Role of biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease in developing countries.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has become a global disease. Its incidence in developing countries is rising. In Asia, this has been attributed to the rapid modernisation and westernisation of the population. As IBD emerges in developing nations, there is a need to reconcile the most appropriate treatment for these patient populations from the perspectives of both disease presentation and cost. In the West, biological agents are the fastest-growing segment of the prescription drug market. They typically cost several thousand to several tens of thousands of dollars per patient per year. The healthcare systems in developing countries will struggle to afford such expensive treatments. Developing countries cover two-thirds of the earth's surface and are home to 3-5 billion inhabitants, constituting three-quarters of all humanity. If IBD emerges to the same extent in those countries as it has in the West, the need for biological therapy will increase dramatically, and the pharmaceutical industry, healthcare providers, patient advocate groups, governments and non-governmental organisations will have to discuss how to handle this. The authors propose that this dialogue should begin now with regard to (1) the major needs of patients with complicated IBD in developing countries, (2) the potential need for biological therapy in developing countries to treat IBD, (3) the necessary infrastructure for selecting patients with IBD who need biological therapy, and (4) medical/ethical issues limiting the use of biological therapy.