Trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in nine major cities in China from 2018 to 2022: a retrospective prescription analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in China. METHODS: The prescription data of outpatients diagnosed with migraine between 2018 and 2022 were extracted from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project of China. The demographic characteristics of migraine patients, prescription trends, and corresponding expenditures on antimigraine medicines were analyzed. We also investigated prescribing patterns of combination therapy and medicine overuse. RESULTS: A total of 32,246 outpatients who were diagnosed with migraine at 103 hospitals were included in this study. There were no significant trend changes in total outpatient visits, migraine prescriptions, or corresponding expenditures during the study period. Of the patients who were prescribed therapeutic medicines, 70.23% received analgesics, and 26.41% received migraine-specific agents. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 28.03%), caffeine-containing agents (22.15%), and opioids (16.00%) were the most commonly prescribed analgesics, with corresponding cost proportions of 11.35%, 4.08%, and 19.61%, respectively. Oral triptans (26.12%) were the most commonly prescribed migraine-specific agents and accounted for 62.21% of the total therapeutic expenditures. The proportion of patients receiving analgesic prescriptions increased from 65.25% in 2018 to 75.68% in 2022, and the proportion of patients receiving concomitant triptans decreased from 29.54% in 2018 to 21.55% in 2022 (both P <  0.001). The most frequently prescribed preventive medication classes were calcium channel blockers (CCBs; 51.59%), followed by antidepressants (20.59%) and anticonvulsants (15.82%), which accounted for 21.90%, 34.18%, and 24.15%, respectively, of the total preventive expenditures. Flunarizine (51.41%) was the most commonly prescribed preventive drug. Flupentixol/melitracen (7.53%) was the most commonly prescribed antidepressant. The most commonly prescribed anticonvulsant was topiramate (9.33%), which increased from 6.26% to 12.75% (both P <  0.001). A total of 3.88% of the patients received combined therapy for acute migraine treatment, and 18.63% received combined therapy for prevention. The prescriptions for 69.21% of opioids, 38.53% of caffeine-containing agents, 26.61% of NSAIDs, 13.97% of acetaminophen, and 6.03% of triptans were considered written medicine overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine treatment gradually converges toward evidence-based and guideline-recommended treatment. Attention should be given to opioid prescribing, weak evidence-based antidepressant use, and medication overuse in migraine treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. RESULTS: The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

Stepwise Approach to the Management of Endometriosis-Related Dysmenorrhea: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of sequential medical and surgical therapy for the treatment of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was created to compare three stepwise medical and surgical treatment strategies compared with immediate surgical management for dysmenorrhea using a health care payor perspective. A theoretical study cohort was derived from the estimated number of reproductive age (18-45) women in the United States with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea. The treatment strategies modeled were: strategy 1) nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) followed by surgery; strategy 2) NSAIDs, then short-acting reversible contraceptives or long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) followed by surgery; strategy 3) NSAIDs, then a short-acting reversible contraceptive or LARC, then a LARC or gonadotropin-releasing hormone modulator followed by surgery; strategy 4) proceeding directly to surgery. Probabilities, utilities, and costs were derived from the literature. Outcomes included cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In this theoretical cohort of 4,817,894 women with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, all medical and surgical treatment strategies were cost effective at a standard willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained when compared with surgery alone. Strategy 2 was associated with the lowest cost per QALY gained ($1,155). Requiring a trial of a third medication before surgery would cost an additional $257 million, compared with proceeding to surgery after failing two medical treatments. The probability of improvement with surgery would need to exceed 83% for this to be the preferred first-line approach. CONCLUSION: All sequential medical and surgical management strategies for endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea were cost effective when compared with surgery alone. A trial of hormonal management after NSAIDs, before proceeding to surgery, may provide cost savings. Delaying surgical management in an individual with pain refractory to more than three medications may decrease quality of life and increase cost.

Assessing the cost and quality-of-life impact of on-demand-only medications for adults with hereditary angioedema.

Background: Novel subcutaneous (SC) prophylactic therapies are transforming the treatment landscape of hereditary angioedema (HAE). Although questions are being raised about their cost, little attention has been paid to the cost and quality of life (QoL) impact of using on-demand-only medications. Objective: We assessed the overall economic burden of on-demand-only treatment for HAE and compared patient QoL with patients who received novel SC prophylactic therapies. Methods: US Hereditary Angioedema Association members were invited to complete an anonymous online survey to profile attack frequency, treatment use, and the presence of comorbidities as well as economic and socioeconomic variables. We modeled on-demand treatment costs by using net pricing of medications in 2018, indirect patient and caregiver costs, and attack-related direct billed costs for emergency department admissions, physician office visits, and/or hospitalizations. QoL was assessed by using the Angioedema Quality of Life questionnaire. Results: A total of 1225 patients (31.4%) responded. Of these, 737 adults with HAE (type I or II) met the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Per patient/year direct costs associated with modeled on-demand-only treatment totaled $363,795, with additional indirect socioeconomic costs of $52,576 per patient/year. The greatest improvement in QoL was seen in patients who used novel SC prophylactic therapies, with a 59.5% (p < 0.01) improvement in median impairment scores versus on-demand-only treatment. In addition, patients who used novel SC prophylactic therapies reported a 77% reduction in the number of attacks each year when compared with those who used on-demand-only treatment. Conclusion: Our real-world patient data showed the cost and QoL burden of HAE treatment with on-demand-only therapy. Use of novel SC prophylaxis can lead to sizeable reductions in attack frequency and statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in QoL. These data could be useful to clinicians and patients as they consider therapy options for patients with HAE.

Cost-Effectiveness of 5-Aminosalicylate Therapy in Combination With Biologics or Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Medications are major cost drivers in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Recent analyses suggest that there is no added efficacy in continuing nor harm in stopping 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease escalated to biological therapies or tofacitinib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of discontinuing 5-ASA therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis on biological therapies or tofacitinib, compared with continuing 5-ASA therapy. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-ASA with biologic therapy and tofacitinib compared with the same treatment without 5-ASA. Our primary outcome was to determine whether biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy was cost-effective compared with biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA combination therapy using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Owing to the uncertainty surrounding outcome probabilities, probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 simulations were also performed. We conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA therapy compared with biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy, whereby vedolizumab was the first biologic used, followed by infliximab and finally tofacitinib. RESULTS: Our model shows that biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominates (cheaper and more effective) combination therapy of biologics/tofacitinib with 5-ASA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations resulted in biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominating 100% of the scenarios, with mean cost savings of $24,483.01 over 2 years. When vedolizumab was the first-line therapy in the sensitivity analysis, biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy continued to dominate the combination of 5-ASA and biologic/tofacitinib therapy. DISCUSSION: This analysis in patients with ulcerative colitis who require treatment with biologics or tofacitinib demonstrates that continuing 5-ASA therapy is not a cost-effective strategy. Discontinuation of 5-ASA therapy in these patients is safe and less expensive and should be recommended.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Strategies with Biologics in Accordance with Treatment Guidelines for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Patient-Level Model.

BACKGROUND: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a form of rheumatic disease caused by chronic inflammation of the axial skeleton. Patients with AS experience significant functional limitations and reduced quality of life. Consequently, AS imposes a substantial economic burden on society due to productivity loss and work disability. Biologics, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody (IL-17A) agents, are effective treatment strategies in relieving symptoms and slowing down disease progression. Currently, 5 TNF inhibitors and 2 IL-17A antibody agents are approved by the FDA for the management of AS. Of these agents, there is no clear preferred agent in initial biologic therapy, although an IL-17A antibody agent or alternative TNF inhibitor agent is recommended after failure of the initial TNF inhibitor therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies with biologics, TNF inhibitor or IL-17A, in accordance with the treatment guidelines for patients with AS. METHODS: An economic patient-level simulation combining decision-tree and Markov models was constructed from the U.S. health care payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon. The current model examined 5 treatment strategies: (1) conventional care treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, (2) 1 TNF inhibitor, (3) an IL-17A antibody agent, (4) sequential therapy with 2 TNF inhibitors, and (5) sequential therapy with a TNF inhibitor followed by an IL-17A antibody agent. Initially, treatment responses were determined after 12-week treatments. Patients who responded to treatment entered a "responders" Markov model. Patients entered a "nonresponders" Markov model if they inadequately responded to treatment. In sequential treatment strategies, patients who inadequately responded to treatment with the first TNF inhibitor received a second TNF inhibitor or an IL-17A antibody agent. Health utility was estimated based on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Functional Index (BASFI) scores. The models accounted for real-world adherence to TNF inhibitor treatment. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness and uncertainty of the model results. RESULTS: Over a 10-year time horizon and 100,000 simulated patients for each treatment strategy, base-case results produced average total discounted per-patient costs of $19,765, $130,302, $159,934, $190,553, and $179,118 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 4.675, 5.410, 5.499, 5.919, and 5.893 for conventional care, treatment strategies with 1 TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A, 2 TNF inhibitors, and a TNF inhibitor followed by an IL-17A, respectively. The optimal treatments at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds ≤ $130,813 per QALY, between $130,813 per QALY and $442,728 per QALY, and > $442,728 per QALY were conventional care and sequential treatment strategies with 1 TNF inhibitor, followed by an IL-17A agent and 2 TNF inhibitors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggested that all treatment strategies with biologics, TNF inhibitors or IL-17A antibody agents, in the treatment guidelines for AS were not cost-effective at the common WTP of $100,000 per QALY. However, the sequential treatment with 1 TNF inhibitor followed by an IL-17A antibody agent was considered cost-effective at a higher WTP of $150,000 per QALY. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. Primary findings of this study were presented in part at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) in Baltimore, MD, May 2018.

Real-world switch patterns and healthcare costs in biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Aim: Treatment switching and healthcare costs were compared among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics with ≥12 months pre-/post-index continuous enrollment in Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart. Methods: After propensity score matching, switch rates (new therapy post-index) and days between index and switch were assessed. Total and per-patient per-month costs by service type were assessed. Results: Apremilast initiators (n = 533) were matched and compared with biologic initiators (n = 955). Twelve-month cumulative switch rates and days to switch were similar. Apremilast initiators had significantly lower total healthcare costs than biologic initiators; apremilast switchers and nonswitchers had significantly lower per-patient per-month costs than biologic switchers and nonswitchers, driven mainly by reduced outpatient pharmacy costs. Conclusion: Apremilast initiators had lower healthcare costs even with treatment switching.

Real-World Experience With Apremilast in the Treatment of Adults With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis in Québec: A Claims-Based Analysis of Drug Utilization and Healthcare Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: In Québec, targeted biologic therapies for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis are restricted to patients who have not responded to phototherapy or conventional systemic treatment, primarily due to high drug costs. Apremilast, an oral treatment for plaque psoriasis, was added to the Québec provincial health insurance plan (Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec; RAMQ) formulary in 2015, making this the only province in Canada with public drug plan reimbursement for apremilast. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe patients' characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and associated costs and to measure real-world budget impact of using apremilast before biologics in plaque psoriasis. METHODS: This study was performed using RAMQ drug claims and medical services data. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis between January 2015 and December 2017 were identified. Medical services and prescription claims were categorized as all-cause and psoriasis-related. Using RAMQ database estimates, a 3-year budget impact analysis was developed comparing treatment cost with and without the addition of apremilast to the formulary. RESULTS: In all, 540 patients were identified (apremilast: n = 92; biologics: n = 448). Comorbidity burden and treatment persistence and adherence were comparable between apremilast and biologic users. The year following the index date, all-cause HCRU was lower for apremilast versus biologic users (CAN$19 763 vs CAN$28 025; P < .01), mainly driven by drug cost. Using apremilast before biologics resulted in an estimated RAMQ net savings of CAN$49 290 (2015), CAN$746 856 (2016), and CAN$1 216 512 (2017), and a total savings of CAN$2 012 658 since apremilast's addition to the formulary. CONCLUSION: Adding apremilast to the drug formulary of other Canadian provinces could result in significant healthcare savings.

Reducing the risk of NSAID related gastrointestinal problems: an update.

Topics for DTB review articles are selected by DTB's editorial board to provide concise overviews of medicines and other treatments to help patients get the best care. Articles include a summary of key points and a brief overview for patients. Articles may also have a series of multiple choice CME questions.

Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: We compared treatment switch patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated apremilast or biologics. METHODS: A 1:2 propensity score match was used to adjust administrative claims data for adults initiating apremilast or biologics from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016, for possible selection bias. Patients had at least 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment in the Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart database. Outcomes included switch frequency, days to switch, adherence on index treatment, and healthcare costs (total and per patient per month). Switch rate was defined as the proportion of patients who switched to a new treatment after initiation of the index treatment, and days to switch was calculated as the days between initiation of the index treatment and initiation of the new treatment. Adherence was calculated using the proportion of days covered and the medication possession ratio. The t test and chi-square, Kaplan-Meier, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to evaluate differences between the cohorts. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and switch rates were similar between the matched apremilast (n = 170) and biologic (n = 327) cohorts. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between the matched cohorts. The 12-month switch rates were similar for patients initiating apremilast versus those on biologics (17.7% vs. 25.1%, P = 0.06). This trend was similar at 6 months (7.7% vs. 13.2%, P = 0.07) and 18 months (24.4% vs. 29.3%, P = 0.33). Regardless of treatment switching, 12-month total healthcare costs were lower with apremilast versus biologics (all: $28,423 vs. $41,178, P < 0.0001; switched: $39,803 vs. $51,517, P = 0.0040; did not switch: $25,984 vs. $37,717, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Biologic-naive patients with PsA who initiated apremilast had switch rates similar to biologic users and significantly lower healthcare costs, regardless of treatment switching.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects an estimated 30% of psoriasis patients who use systemic therapy. Symptoms of PsA, such as joint swelling and tenderness, can be painful and disabling and may worsen quality of life. PsA can also impart a substantial economic burden. Treatment for moderate to severe PsA often involves the use of systemic oral medications (e.g., conventional systemic treatments such as methotrexate or targeted systemic treatments such as apremilast) or biologic therapy given by injection or infusion. Because PsA symptoms and responses to treatment can vary, patients may switch treatments over time. More research is needed to better understand how switching treatments affects healthcare costs among patients starting treatment with apremilast or a biologic for PsA. This study compared treatment switching and healthcare costs among patients with PsA who had never been treated with a biologic and who started treatment with apremilast or a biologic for PsA. Rates of treatment switching at 12 months were similar for patients starting treatment with apremilast versus those starting a biologic. Patients starting treatment with apremilast had significantly lower total healthcare costs compared with those starting a biologic, even if they later switched to a biologic. Healthcare costs calculated per patient per month (PPPM) were also lower with apremilast versus biologics, driven by lower PPPM pharmacy costs. These findings suggest that starting treatment with apremilast may be an effective and cost-effective strategy for managing PsA, even for patients who later switch to a biologic.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacist-Led Deprescribing of NSAIDs in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults are often prescribed potentially inappropriate medications associated with adverse health outcomes and increased health services utilization. Developing Pharmacist-led Research to Educate and Sensitize Community Residents to the Inappropriate Prescriptions Burden in the Elderly (D-PRESCRIBE), a pragmatic randomized clinical trial, demonstrated how a community pharmacist-led evidence-based educational intervention successfully empowered community-dwelling older adults and their physicians to reduce chronic use of inappropriate medications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the D-PRESCRIBE intervention for discontinuing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older. MEASUREMENTS: Decision analysis combining decision tree and Markov state transition modeling was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) compared with usual care from a Canadian healthcare system perspective with a time horizon of 1 year. Data from the D-PRESCRIBE trial and published literature were used to calculate effectiveness, utilities, and costs. Reference case and scenario analyses were conducted using probabilistic modeling. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the reference case model. RESULTS: D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) was less costly (-$1008.61) and more effective (.11 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than usual care and was the dominant strategy. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 per QALY and $100 000 per QALY, D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) incurred a positive incremental net benefit compared with usual care, suggesting it is cost-effective. Compared with the reference case, scenario analyses gave comparable QALYs with modest variation in cost estimates. CONCLUSION: For community-dwelling older adults, D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) provides greater benefits at lower system costs, making it a compelling strategy to reduce the use and harms associated with chronic NSAID consumption. Our findings support reimbursing community pharmacists' clinical professional services for deprescribing inappropriate NSAIDs in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1090-1097, 2020.

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis in Italy.

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).Methods: A Markov state transition cohort model, which was adapted to the Italian context, was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients' quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for PsA in Italy, who can be eligible for treatment with apremilast. The eligible population was represented by adult patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to or were intolerant to previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), for the approved indication, and for the treatment studied in the economic analytic model.Results: This cost-effectiveness analysis estimated that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy is cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €32,263.00 per QALY gained which is slightly over the normal threshold found in other Italian economic studies, which usually considers a 40-year-period. Conversely, the budget impact analysis was conducted over 3 years, and it led to an estimated annual saving of €1.6 million, €4.6 million and €5.5 million in the first, second and third year of apremilast commercialization, respectively, for a total saving of €11.75 million in 3 years.Limitations: Limitations of this analysis include the absence of head-to-head trials comparing therapies included in the economic model, the lack of comparative long-term data on treatment efficacy, and the assumption of complete independence between the considered response rates to therapy.Conclusion: The use of apremilast as a first option before the use of biologic agents may represent a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with PsA who fail to respond to, or are intolerant to, previous DMARD therapy. In addition, based on a budget impact perspective, the use of apremilast may lead to cost savings to the Italian healthcare system.

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriasis in the Italian setting.

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (defined as a psoriasis area severity index [PASI] ≥ 10), who failed to respond to, had a contraindication to, or were intolerant to other systemic therapies, within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).Materials and methods: A Markov state-transition cohort model adapted to the Italian context was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients' quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for psoriasis in Italy, who would be eligible for treatment with apremilast.Results: Over 5 years, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy was dominant compared with the sequence of biologic treatments without apremilast. In addition, it is important to underline that the use of apremilast slightly increases the quality-adjusted life years gained over 5 years. Furthermore, within the budget impact analysis, the strategy including apremilast would lead to a saving of €16 million within 3 years. Savings would mainly be related to a reduction in pharmaceutical spending, hospital admissions and other drug administration-related costs.Conclusion: These models proved to be robust to variation in parameters and it suggested that the use of apremilast would lead to savings to the Italian healthcare system with potential benefits in terms of patients' quality of life.

Transferosomes as nanocarriers for drugs across the skin: Quality by design from lab to industrial scale.

Transferosomes, also known as transfersomes, are ultradeformable vesicles for transdermal applications consisting of a lipid bilayer with phospholipids and an edge activator and an ethanol/aqueous core. Depending on the lipophilicity of the active substance, it can be encapsulated within the core or amongst the lipid bilayer. Compared to liposomes, transferosomes are able to reach intact deeper regions of the skin after topical administration delivering higher concentrations of active substances making them a successful drug delivery carrier for transdermal applications. Most transferosomes contain phosphatidylcholine (C18) as it is the most abundant lipid component of the cell membrane, and hence, it is highly tolerated for the skin, decreasing the risk of undesirable effects, such as hypersensitive reactions. The most common edge activators are surfactants such as sodium deoxycholate, Tween® 80 and Span® 80. Their chain length is optimal for intercalation within the C18 phospholipid bilayer. A wide variety of drugs has been successfully encapsulated within transferosomes such as phytocompounds like sinomenine or apigenin for rheumatoid arthritis and leukaemia respectively, small hydrophobic drugs but also macromolecules like insulin. The main factors to develop optimal transferosomal formulations (with high drug loading and nanometric size) are the optimal ratio between the main components as well as the critical process parameters for their manufacture. Application of quality by design (QbD), specifically design of experiments (DoE), is crucial to understand the interplay among all these factors not only during the preparation at lab scale but also in the scale-up process. Clinical trials of a licensed topical ketoprofen transferosomal gel have shown promising results in the alleviation of symptons in orthreothritis with non-severe skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. However, the product was withdrawn from the market which probably was related to the higher cost of the medicine linked to the expensive manufacturing process required in the production of transferosomes compared to other conventional gel formulations. This example brings out the need for a careful formulation design to exploit the best properties of this drug delivery system as well as the development of manufacturing processes easily scalable at industrial level.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Early to Moderate Stage Knee Osteoarthritis with Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Compared to Conservative Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence has demonstrated greater benefit of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) within earlier stages of knee osteoarthritis (OA) rather than waiting for patients to have progressed to later stages of disease progression. High molecular weight (HMW) HA has also been shown to be more effective than low molecular weight (LMW) HA products in mild to moderate knee OA, providing an important distinction to make within the class of IA-HA therapies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with knee OA with HMW HA compared to LMW and conservative treatment, while taking into account disease stage. METHODS: Decision analytic models were created for early/moderate, as well as late stage knee OA. Models for late stage knee OA were created by assuming a range of response rates to IA-HA treatments from 10% to 50%. These models included conservative treatment using physical therapy/exercise, braces/orthosis, and medications such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics. The models compared the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for these treatments to the use of either LMW or HMW HA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment in relation to HMW HA. RESULTS: When evaluating treatment in early to moderate knee OA, HMW HA was dominant over LMW HA and physical therapy/exercise, as it was less expensive and provided greater benefit. HMW HA was cost-effective versus braces/orthosis and NSAID/analgesic medications based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. In the model of 50% response rate to IA-HA for late stage OA, HMW HA remained cost-effective in comparison to physical therapy/exercise and braces/orthosis at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000; but not NSAID/analgesic medications. In the worst-case scenario of a 10% responder rate to IA-HA, HMW HA was no longer cost-effective in any circumstance. CONCLUSION: IA-HA, particularly HMW formulations, demonstrate cost-effectiveness when compared to conservative treatment options and LMW HA in patients with early/mid stage knee OA. The cost-effectiveness of HMW HA in patients with later stage knee OA was not as apparent, particularly because of the uncertainty in the proportion of patients with late stage OA who have a meaningful improvement after receiving IA-HA. This cost-effectiveness finding supports the use of IA-HA in patients with early and moderate knee OA, as the benefits of IA-HA are apparent within the patient population with mild to moderate knee OA. The findings of this study suggest that there is a potential cost savings benefit as a result of utilizing HMW HA in earlier stages of knee OA as opposed to later stages. FUNDING: Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab Versus Other Biologics and Apremilast in the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis that occurs in people affected by the autoimmune disease psoriasis. The cost effectiveness of secukinumab in PsA has not been evaluated in Germany. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of secukinumab in three adult populations with active PsA in Germany: biologic naïve without moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, biologic naïve with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, and biologic experienced. Comparators included other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biosimilar versions as well as standard of care. METHODS: The analysis took the viewpoint of the German statutory health insurance. We adapted a decision analytic semi-Markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of secukinumab over a lifetime horizon. Treatment response was assessed based on PsA Response Criteria at 12 weeks. Nonresponders or patients discontinuing the initial-line DMARD were allowed to switch to subsequent-line DMARDs. Model input parameters (Psoriasis Area Severity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), withdrawal rates, costs, and resource use) were collected from clinical trials, published literature, and official reports. Health benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and benefits. The robustness of the study findings was evaluated via sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the biologic-naïve population without moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, secukinumab 150 mg either strictly dominated other DMARDs (certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and ustekinumab) or yielded favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (vs. etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab). In the biologic-naïve population with concomitant moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and in the biologic-experienced population, secukinumab 300 mg was more effective and had a lower ICER than other DMARDs, thus leading to extended dominance. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were most sensitive to the discount rate for costs and health outcomes as well as the HAQ score as an input to utility values. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab appears to be cost effective compared with other DMARDs for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced populations in Germany.