Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases and several Internet resources were searched up to April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of the efficacy, safety and economic reviews of etanercept and efalizumab. An existing systematic review of the efficacy and safety of other treatments was also updated. Economic models supplied by the manufacturers of etanercept and efalizumab were critiqued. An economic model was then developed of etanercept and efalizumab in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. RESULTS: The review of the clinical evidence identified a total of 39 published and three unpublished studies: eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of etanercept (three trials) and efalizumab (five); 10 studies of the adverse effects of the interventions; and 24 RCTs of the efficacy of the other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. The trials of the efficacy of the interventions were all double-blind and placebo-controlled trials and generally of good quality, but three of the five efalizumab trials were poorly reported. A total of 1347 patients were included in the etanercept trials and 2963 in the efalizumab trials. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 25 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from three RCTs. On average, active treatment resulted in 62% of patients achieving a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 33% achieving a PASI 75, 11% achieving a PASI 90 and 40% were assessed as clear or almost clear. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. Improvement in quality of life as assessed by mean percentage change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was around 59% with etanercept 25 mg twice a week compared with 9% with placebo, and all mean differences that could be calculated were statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 50 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from two RCTs. Across the two trials, the proportion of patients achieving PASI 50, 75 and 90 was 76, 49 and 21%, respectively; the pooled relative risks were all statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. The findings for mean PASI after treatment, mean percentage change in PASI from baseline and mean percentage change in DLQI also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept treatment. Evidence from one RCT indicates that the response to etanercept is maintained post-treatment, at least in the medium term, and data from uncontrolled follow-up phases reflect and extend these findings. Efalizumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg once a week subcutaneously was studied in five RCTs. Across these trials, 12 weeks of active treatment resulted in an average of 55% of patients achieving PASI 50, 27% PASI 75, 4.3% PASI 90 and 27% clear or minimal psoriasis status. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. There is no evidence from RCTs that the response to efalizumab 1 mg/kg once a week is maintained when treatment continues beyond 12 weeks, and long-term follow-up data relate to a range of doses and are poorly reported and so cannot be used to draw even tentative conclusions regarding the long-term efficacy of efalizumab. Uncontrolled data from trial follow-up suggest that time to relapse may be around 60 days. No data indicating the existence or absence of any rebound in psoriasis after discontinuation of efalizumab were identified. There is no evidence relating to the efficacy of efalizumab upon retreatment. A mixed treatment comparison analysis found a higher response rate in terms of PASI 50, 75 and 90 with etanercept than with efalizumab. Injection site reactions appear to be the most common adverse effects of etanercept. Overall, etanercept appears to be well tolerated in short- and long-term use, although many of the long-term data are not from patients with psoriasis. Headache, chills and, to a lesser extent, nausea, myalgia, pain and fever are the common adverse events associated with efalizumab. Overall, withdrawal rates due to adverse events are low. Longer term data for efalizumab are not readily available for evaluation, but the adverse events data up to 3 years appear to reflect those over 12 weeks and to remain stable. Unfortunately, few data for serious infections and serious adverse events with efalizumab are available. For the primary analysis comparing etanercept, efalizumab and supportive care, the results of the York Model suggest that the biological therapies would only be cost-effective for all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis if the NHS were willing to pay over pound 60,000 per QALY gained. In patients with poor baseline quality of life (fourth quartile DLQI), efalizumab, etanercept 25 mg (intermittent), etanercept 25 mg (continuous) and etanercept 50 mg (intermittent) would be cost-effective as part of a treatment sequence if the NHS were willing to pay pound 45,000, pound 35,000, pound 45,000 and pound 65,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients who are also at high risk of inpatient hospitalisation (21 days per annum), these therapies would be cost-effective as part of a sequence as long as the NHS were willingness to pay pound 25,000, pound 20,000, pound 25,000 and pound 45,000 per QALY gained, respectively. As part of a secondary analysis including a wider range of systemic therapies as comparators, the York Model found that it would only be cost-effective to use etanercept and efalizumab in a sequence after methotrexate, ciclosporin and Fumaderm. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data indicate that both etanercept and efalizumab are efficacious in patients who are eligible for systemic therapy, but the economic evaluation demonstrates that these biological therapies are likely to be cost-effective only in patients with poor baseline QoL and who are at risk of hospitalisation. Efficacy trials conducted in the specific population for which etanercept and efalizumab are licensed are required, as are long-term comparisons of etanercept and efalizumab with other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. Long-term efficacy trials and safety/tolerability data for patients treated with etanercept or efalizumab are required, as are trials on the response of specific subtypes of psoriasis to different drugs. Research on the rate of inpatient hospitalisation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis is warranted, and the effect of treatment on this rate.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who have inadequate response to standard treatment, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2004. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review evaluated the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of etanercept and infliximab. The efficacy of DMARDs in the treatment of PsA was also reviewed and treatments were compared using Bayesian evidence synthesis methods. Following evaluation of existing economic evaluations of etanercept and infliximab in PsA, a new economic model was developed (the York Model). This utilised the results from the evidence synthesis and data from a range of other sources. RESULTS: Across the two trials, at 12 weeks, around 65% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 {pooled relative risk (RR) 4.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.74 to 6.42]}, demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. In addition, around 45% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an ACR 50 [pooled RR 10.84 (95% CI 4.47 to 26.28)] and around 12% achieved an ACR 70 [pooled RR 16.28 (95% CI 2.20 to 120.54)], demonstrating a good level of efficacy. The subgroup analyses conducted in one trial revealed that the effect of etanercept was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. In addition, almost 85% of patients treated with etanercept achieved a Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) [pooled RR 2.60 (95% CI 1.96 to 3.45). The Psoriatic Area and Severity Index (PASI) results indicate some beneficial effect on psoriasis at 12 weeks; however, the data are sparse. The statistically significant reduction (improvement) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score with etanercept compared with placebo indicates a beneficial effect of etanercept on function. Similar results were seen at 24 weeks, except that the results for PASI 75 and PASI 50 now achieved statistical significance and data for Total Sharp Score annualised rate of progression were available; this was statistically significantly lower in etanercept-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients. Uncontrolled follow-up of patients indicates that treatment benefit may be maintained for at least 50 weeks. At 16 weeks, 65% of patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 20 [RR 6.80 (95% CI 2.89 to 16.01)], demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. This level of efficacy was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. Almost half the patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 50 [RR 49.00 (95% CI 3.06 to 785.06)] and over one-quarter achieved an ACR 70 [RR 31.00 (95% CI 1.90 to 504.86)] compared with none of the placebo group, demonstrating a good level of efficacy. In addition, 75% of patients treated with infliximab achieved a PsARC [RR 3.55 (95% CI 2.05 to 6.13)]. The beneficial treatment effect on psoriasis was also statistically significant with a mean difference in percentage change from baseline in PASI of -5 (95% CI -6.8 to -3.3), as was the percentage improvement from baseline in HAQ score with infliximab compared with placebo [mean difference 51.4 (95% CI 48.08 to 54.72)], indicating a beneficial effect of infliximab on functional status. Uncontrolled data from all measures of joint disease, psoriasis and HAQ collected up to 50 weeks of follow-up reflect those at 16 weeks. There were no radiographic assessments, so nothing can be determined about the potential or otherwise of infliximab to delay the progression of joint disease. Using the York cost-effectiveness model, infliximab was consistently dominated by etanercept because of its higher acquisition and administration costs without superior effectiveness. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of etanercept compared with palliative care ranged from 14,818 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,374 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) if it is assumed that, when patients eventually fail on biological therapy, their disability (in terms of HAQ score) deteriorates by the same amount as it improved when they initially respond to treatment (rebound equal to gain). Results for etanercept ranged from 25,443 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,441 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) per QALY gained under the assumption that, when patients fail on therapy, their disability level returns to what it would have been had they never responded (rebound equal to natural history). CONCLUSIONS: The limited data available indicated that etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. Short-term data indicated that etanercept can delay joint disease progression, but long-term data are needed. There are no controlled data as yet to indicate that infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Treatment with both etanercept and infliximab for 12 weeks demonstrated a significant degree of efficacy, with no statistically significant difference between them. For both drugs, adverse events were common with mild injection/infusion reactions being the main treatment-related effect. The York model indicated that etanercept is more cost-effective than infliximab as it has a lower cost with little difference in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept is also sensitive to assumptions made about the extent of disease progression when patients are responding to therapy. The number of years for which a patient can be safely on biologicals is uncertain so these results should be considered with caution. Further research should include long-term controlled trials to confirm benefits, review adverse events and to explore further the implications of biologic therapy.

Clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of gabapentin (GBP), lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV), oxcarbazepine (OXC), tiagabine (TGB), topiramate (TPM) and vigabatrin (VGB) for epilepsy in adults. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Internet resources. Pharmaceutical company submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were screened and quality assessed. Separate analyses assessed clinical effectiveness, serious, rare and long-term adverse events and cost-effectiveness. An integrated economic analysis incorporating information on costs and effects of newer and older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was performed to give direct comparisons of long-term costs and benefits. RESULTS: A total of 212 studies were included in the review. All included systematic reviews were Cochrane reviews and of good quality. The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was variable. Assessment was hampered by poor reporting of methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding. Few of the non-randomised studies were of good quality. The main weakness of the economic evaluations was inappropriate use of the cost-minimisation design. The included systematic reviews reported that newer AEDs were effective as adjunctive therapy compared to placebo. For newer versus older drugs, data were available for all three monotherapy AEDs, although data for OXC and TPM were limited. There was limited, poor-quality evidence of a significant improvement in cognitive function with LTG and OXC compared with older AEDs. However, there were no consistent statistically significant differences in other clinical outcomes, including proportion of seizure-free patients. No studies assessed effectiveness of AEDs in people with intellectual disabilities or in pregnant women. There was very little evidence to assess the effectiveness of AEDs in the elderly; no significant differences were found between LTG and carbamazepine monotherapy. Sixty-seven RCTs compared adjunctive therapy with placebo, older AEDs or other newer AEDs. For newer AEDs versus placebo, a trend was observed in favour of newer drugs, and there was evidence of statistically significant differences in proportion of responders favouring newer drugs. However, it was not possible to assess long-term effectiveness. Most trials were conducted in patients with partial seizures. For newer AEDs versus older drugs, there was no evidence to assess the effectiveness of LEV, LTG or OXC, and evidence for other newer drugs was limited to single studies. Trials only included patients with partial seizures and follow-up was relatively short. There was no evidence to assess effectiveness of adjunctive LEV, OXC or TPM versus other newer drugs, and there were no time to event or cognitive data. No studies assessed the effectiveness of adjunctive AEDs in the elderly or pregnant women. There was some evidence from one study (GBP versus LTG) that both drugs have some beneficial effect on behaviour in people with learning disabilities. Eighty RCTs reported the incidence of adverse events. There was no consistent or convincing evidence to draw any conclusions concerning relative safety and tolerability of newer AEDs compared with each other, older AEDs or placebo. The integrated economic analysis for monotherapy for newly diagnosed patients with partial seizures showed that older AEDs were more likely to be cost-effective, although there was considerable uncertainty in these results. The integrated analysis suggested that newer AEDs used as adjunctive therapy for refractory patients with partial seizures were more effective and more costly than continuing with existing treatment alone. Combination therapy, involving new AEDs, may be cost-effective at a threshold willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) greater than 20,000 pounds, depending on patients' previous treatment history. There was, again, considerable uncertainty in these results. There were few data available to determine effectiveness of treatments for patients with generalised seizures. LTG and VPA showed similar health benefits when used as monotherapy. VPA was less costly and was likely to be cost-effective. The analysis indicated that TPM might be cost-effective when used as an adjunctive therapy, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 34,500 pounds compared with continuing current treatment alone. CONCLUSIONS: There was little good-quality evidence from clinical trials to support the use of newer monotherapy or adjunctive therapy AEDs over older drugs, or to support the use of one newer AED in preference to another. In general, data relating to clinical effectiveness, safety and tolerability failed to demonstrate consistent and statistically significant differences between the drugs. The exception was comparisons between newer adjunctive AEDs and placebo, where significant differences favoured newer AEDs. However, trials often had relatively short-term treatment durations and often failed to limit recruitment to either partial or generalised onset seizures, thus limiting the applicability of the data. Newer AEDs, used as monotherapy, may be cost-effective for the treatment of patients who have experienced adverse events with older AEDs, who have failed to respond to the older drugs, or where such drugs are contraindicated. The integrated economic analysis also suggested that newer AEDs used as adjunctive therapy may be cost-effective compared with the continuing current treatment alone given a QALY of about 20,000 pounds. There is a need for more direct comparisons of the different AEDs within clinical trials, considering different treatment sequences within both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. Length of follow-up also needs to be considered. Trials are needed that recruit patients with either partial or generalised seizures; that investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in patients with generalised onset seizures and that investigate effectiveness in specific populations of epilepsy patients, as well as studies evaluating cognitive outcomes to use more stringent testing protocols and to adopt a more consistent approach in assessing outcomes. Further research is also required to assess the quality of life within trials of epilepsy therapy using preference-based measures of outcomes that generate cost-effectiveness data. Future RCTs should use CONSORT guidelines; and observational data to provide information on the use of AEDs in actual practice, including details of treatment sequences and doses.

Systematic review of interventions to reduce delay in patients with suspected heart attack.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce time from onset of signs and symptoms of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to seeking medical help/arrival at hospital. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Fifteen electronic databases, the internet, and bibliographies of included studies were searched, and experts in the field of cardiac care were contacted. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, and before and after studies conducted in any setting that assessed an intervention aimed at reducing time from onset of signs and symptoms of an AMI to seeking medical help and/or arrival in hospital were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Eleven media/public education intervention studies met the inclusion criteria. Five (one controlled and four before and after studies) reported the intervention to have a statistically positive effect on delay time and six (two RCTs and four before and after studies) reported no statistically significant effect. Three (one RCT and two before and after studies) of five studies evaluating the effect of the intervention on emergency department visits reported an increase in this outcome as a result of the intervention, and both studies (one RCT and one before and after study) examining calls made to emergency switchboards reported an increase in this outcome after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence that media/public education interventions reduced delay. There is some evidence that they may result in an increase in emergency switchboard calls and emergency department visits. Despite substantial expenditure of time and effort, methodological deficiencies of the studies mean that it is not possible to make definitive recommendations.