RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the epidemiology, treatment patterns, and resource utilization in patients with alopecia areata (AA) in Taiwan using the National Health Insurance Research Database. AA severity was determined by treatment use and diagnostic codes in the year after enrollment (including corticosteroids, systemic immunosuppressants, topical immunotherapy, and phototherapy). METHODS: The cross-sectional analysis was conducted to estimate the incidence and prevalence of AA from 2016 to 2020. For the longitudinal analysis, 2 cohorts were identified: mild/moderate and severe. The cohorts were matched based on age, gender, and comorbidities. Patients were enrolled upon their first claim with an AA diagnosis during the index period of 2017-2018. RESULTS: The number of patients with AA increased from 3221 in 2016 to 3855 in 2020. The longitudinal analysis identified 1808 mild/moderate patients and 452 severe patients. Mild/moderate patients used higher levels of topical corticosteroids (82.41%) than severe patients (73.45%). Conversely, severe patients used more topical nonsteroids (41.81%) and systemic therapies (51.77%) than mild/moderate patients (0.44% and 16.15%, respectively). Oral glucocorticoids use was higher in severe patients (47.57%) relative to mild/moderate patients (14.88%), whereas the use of injectable forms was similar. The most used systemic immunosuppressants were methotrexate, cyclosporin, and azathioprine. Topical immunotherapy utilization decreased with subsequent treatment lines for severe patients. Treatment persistence at 6 months was low for all treatments. Severe patients had higher annual AA-related outpatient visits than the mild/moderate cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for additional innovations and therapies to address the clinical and economic burden of AA.
Asunto(s)
Alopecia Areata , Programas Nacionales de Salud , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud , Humanos , Alopecia Areata/terapia , Alopecia Areata/epidemiología , Alopecia Areata/tratamiento farmacológico , Taiwán/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Persona de Mediana Edad , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Programas Nacionales de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Programas Nacionales de Salud/economía , Prevalencia , Bases de Datos Factuales , Adolescente , Incidencia , Inmunosupresores/uso terapéutico , Estudios LongitudinalesRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to conduct a retrospective analysis to understand the patient profile, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and cost of atopic dermatitis (AD) of patients eligible for targeted therapy in Taiwan. METHODS: A retrospective, claims-based analysis was undertaken using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database from 01 January 2014 to 31 December 2017. Patients aged ≥ 2 years and with at least one diagnosis code for AD during 2015 were identified. Patients with comorbid autoimmune diseases were excluded. Enrolled AD patients were categorized using claims-based treatment algorithms by disease severity and their eligibility for targeted therapy treatment. A cohort of targeted therapy-eligible patients was formed, and a matched cohort using patients not eligible for targeted therapy was derived using propensity score matching based on age, gender, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs were measured during a 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 377,423 patients with AD were identified for this study. Most patients had mild AD (84.5%; n = 318,830) with 11.9% (n = 45,035) having moderate AD, and 3.6% (n = 13,558) having severe AD. Within the 58,593 moderate-to-severe AD patients, 1.5% (n = 897) were included in the targeted therapy-eligible cohort. The matched cohort consisted of 3558 patients. During the 1-year follow-up period, targeted therapy-eligible patients utilized antihistamines (85.5%), topical treatments (80.8%), and systemic anti-inflammatories (91.6%) including systemic corticosteroids (51.4%) and azathioprine (59.1%). During the first year of follow-up, targeted therapy-eligible patients (70.5%; 7.01 [SD = 8.84] visits) had higher resource utilization rates and frequency of AD-related outpatient visits compared with the matched cohort (40.80%; 1.85 [SD = 4.71] visits). Average all-cause direct costs during 1-year follow-up were $2850 (SD = 3629) and $1841 (SD = 6434) for the eligible targeted therapy and matched cohorts, respectively. AD-related costs were 17.7% ($506) of total costs for the targeted therapy eligible cohort and 2.2% ($41) for the matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: AD patients eligible for targeted therapy in Taiwan experienced high resource and economic burden compared with their non-targeted-therapy-eligible counterparts.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of comprehensive cost information for cardiovascular events since 2013. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review on the contemporary cost of cardiovascular events was therefore undertaken. METHODS: Methods complied with those recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Studies were unrestricted by language, were from 2013 to 23 December 2017, and included cost-of-illness data in adults with the following cardiovascular conditions: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), heart failure (HF), unstable angina (UA), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Seven electronic databases were searched, namely Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE In-Process Citations and Daily Update (Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. The included studies reported data from a variety of years (sometimes prior to 2013), so costs were inflated and converted to $US, year 2018 values, for standardization. RESULTS: After de-duplication, 29,945 titles and abstracts and then 403 full papers were screened; 82 studies (88 papers) were extracted. Year 1 average cost ranges were as follows: MI ($11,970 in Sweden to $61,864 in the USA), stroke ($10,162 in Spain to $46,162 in the USA), TIA ($6049 in Sweden to $25,306 in the USA), HF ($4456 in China to $49,427 in the USA), UA ($11,237 in Sweden to $31,860 in the USA), PCI ($17,923 in Italy to $45,533 in the USA), CABG ($17,972 in the UK to $76,279 in the USA). One Swedish study reported PAD costs in a format convertible to $US, 2018 values, with a mean annual cost of $15,565. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable unexplained variation in contemporary costs for all major cardiovascular events. One emerging theme was that average costs in the USA were considerably higher than anywhere else.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/economía , Costo de Enfermedad , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , HumanosRESUMEN
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the company that makes obinutuzumab (Roche Products Limited) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with chemotherapy, with or without obinutuzumab as maintenance therapy for adult patients with untreated, advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) in the UK. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission, the ERG review, and NICE's subsequent decisions. The clinical evidence was derived from two phase III, company-sponsored, randomised, open-label studies. Most evidence on obinutuzumab was based on the GALLIUM trial that compared obinutuzumab in combination with chemotherapy as induction followed by obinutuzumab maintenance monotherapy with rituximab in combination with chemotherapy as induction followed by rituximab maintenance monotherapy in previously untreated patients with FL (grades 1-3a). Long-term clinical evidence was based on the PRIMA trial, studying the benefit of two years of rituximab maintenance after first-line treatment in patients with FL. The cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company relied on a partitioned survival cost-utility model, implemented in Microsoft® Excel. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) presented in the company submission was <£20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Although the ERG concluded that the economic model met the NICE reference case to a reasonable extent, some errors were identified and several assumptions made by the company were challenged. A new base-case scenario produced by the ERG suggested an ICER that was higher than the company base case, but still below £30,000 per QALY gained. However, some ERG scenario analyses were close to or even above the threshold. This was the case in particular for assuming a treatment effect that did not extend beyond trial follow-up. These results led to an initial negative recommendation by the appraisal committee. Subsequently, the company submitted a revised base case focusing on patients at intermediate or high risk of premature mortality. Simultaneously, a further price discount for obinutuzumab was granted. In addition to the company's revised base case, the ERG suggested a restriction of the treatment effect to 5 years and implemented biosimilar uptake and cheaper prices for rituximab. All of these adjustments did not exceed £30,000 per QALY gained and therefore the use of obinutuzumab for patients with advanced FL and a Follicular Lymphoma International Predictive Index (FLIPI) score of two or more could be recommended.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administración & dosificación , Linfoma Folicular/tratamiento farmacológico , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/administración & dosificación , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Linfoma Folicular/economía , Linfoma Folicular/patología , Modelos Económicos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Rituximab/administración & dosificación , Evaluación de la Tecnología BiomédicaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous reviews have evaluated economic analyses of lipid-lowering therapies using lipid levels as surrogate markers for cardiovascular disease. However, drug approval and health technology assessment agencies have stressed that surrogates should only be used in the absence of clinical endpoints. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the methodologies, weaknesses and strengths of economic models based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of lipid-lowering therapies using cardiovascular event rates in adults with hyperlipidaemia were sought in Medline, Embase, Medline In-Process, PubMed and NHS EED and conference proceedings. Search results were independently screened, extracted and quality checked by two reviewers. RESULTS: Searches until February 2016 retrieved 3443 records, from which 26 studies (29 publications) were selected. Twenty-two studies evaluated secondary prevention (four also assessed primary prevention), two considered only primary prevention and two included mixed primary and secondary prevention populations. Most studies (18) based treatment-effect estimates on single trials, although more recent evaluations deployed meta-analyses (5/10 over the last 10 years). Markov models (14 studies) were most commonly used and only one study employed discrete event simulation. Models varied particularly in terms of health states and treatment-effect duration. No studies used a systematic review to obtain utilities. Most studies took a healthcare perspective (21/26) and sourced resource use from key trials instead of local data. Overall, reporting quality was suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals methodological changes over time, but reporting weaknesses remain, particularly with respect to transparency of model reporting.