RESUMEN
Background@#The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. @*Methods@#A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). @*Results@#Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). @*Conclusion@#There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) extend the treatment choices for rheumatoid arthritis patients with insufficient response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs). These agents have considerable efficacy compared with conventional DMARDs, but only a few head-to-head comparisons among these agents have been performed. The objective of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the relative efficacy of Certolizumab with conventional DMARD to licensed bDMARD with cDMARD therapy for patients who failed to prior cDMARD treatment under the condition of the reimbursement coverage criteria in Korea. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE and Cochrane library. Key endpoints were the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses of 20/50/70 at six months. Bayesian outcomes were calculated as median of treatment effect, probability of the best, Odds Ratio (OR) and probability that OR was greater than one. RESULTS: Compared with other bDMARDs, Certolizumab were associated with higher or comparable ACR response rates; in ACR20, the OR (probability of OR>1) was 2.08 (92.6%) for Adalimumab, 1.86 (85.7%) for Etanercept, 1.89 (79.5%) for Golimumab, 2.36 (92.1%) for Infliximab, 1.79 (87.0%) for Abatacept, 1.74 (80.8%) for Rituximab and 1.82 (86.8%) for Tocilizaumab. In ACR50 and ACR70, the ORs did not present significant differences. CONCLUSION: Certolizaumab with cDMARD was more effective or comparable than other bDMARDs in patients who failed prior cDMARD treatment.