Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus). Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib). Data sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review. Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources. Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations. Future work and limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common skin conditions in children but can also develop in adulthood. People with atopic dermatitis have dry, red (inflamed) skin that is also extremely itchy (pruritus). There is no cure for atopic dermatitis. Therapy starts with topical treatments that are applied to the skin, such as emollients. Severe forms of atopic dermatitis are often treated with systemic treatments, which are drugs that are provided as tablets or an injection. Ciclosporin A is often the first systemic therapy given. If atopic dermatitis does not get better with ciclosporin A, options available in the National Health Service are dupilumab and baricitinib. New therapies that have been evaluated in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis but have not been assessed for use in the National Health Service are abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib. The aim of this project is to review the medical benefits, risks and value for money for the National Health Service of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a multiple technology appraisal. Our review found that: For children aged between 12 and 18 years, abrocitinib and a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg) are good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who need a first systemic treatment, upadacitinib is unlikely to be good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could be good value for money for the National Health Service if they are used on their own. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, but need to take it with steroid cream, abrocitinib 100 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could all be good value for money for the National Health Service.

Implantable cardiac monitors to detect atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cryptogenic stroke is a stroke for which no cause is identified after standard diagnostic tests. Long-term implantable cardiac monitors may be better at diagnosing atrial fibrillation and provide an opportunity to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence with anticoagulants. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three implantable monitors [BioMonitor 2-AF™ (Biotronik SE & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany), Confirm Rx™ (Abbott Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and Reveal LINQ™ (Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] in patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke and for whom no atrial fibrillation is detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from inception until September 2018. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken. Two reviewers agreed on studies for inclusion and performed quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Results were discussed narratively because there were insufficient data for synthesis. A two-stage de novo economic model was developed: (1) a short-term patient flow model to identify cryptogenic stroke patients who have had atrial fibrillation detected and been prescribed anticoagulation treatment (rather than remaining on antiplatelet treatment) and (2) a long-term Markov model that captured the lifetime costs and benefits of patients on either anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment. RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial, Cryptogenic Stroke and underlying Atrial Fibrillation (CRYSTAL-AF) (Sanna T, Diener HC, Passman RS, Di Lazzaro V, Bernstein RA, Morillo CA, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2014;370:2478-86), was identified, and no diagnostic test accuracy study was identified. The CRYSTAL-AF trial compared the Reveal™ XT (a Reveal LINQ predecessor) (Medtronic plc) monitor with standard of care monitoring. Twenty-six single-arm observational studies for the Reveal devices were also identified. The only data for BioMonitor 2-AF or Confirm Rx were from mixed population studies supplied by the companies. Atrial fibrillation detection in the CRYSTAL-AF trial was higher with the Reveal XT than with standard monitoring at all time points. By 36 months, atrial fibrillation was detected in 19% of patients with an implantable cardiac monitor and in 2.3% of patients receiving conventional follow-up. The 26 observational studies demonstrated that, even in a cryptogenic stroke population, atrial fibrillation detection rates are highly variable and most cases are asymptomatic; therefore, they probably would not have been picked up without an implantable cardiac monitor. Device-related adverse events, such as pain and infection, were low in all studies. The de novo economic model produced incremental cost effectiveness ratios comparing implantable cardiac monitors with standard of care monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke patients based on data for the Reveal XT device, which can be related to Reveal LINQ. The BioMonitor 2-AF and Confirm RX were included in the analysis by making a strong assumption of equivalence with Reveal LINQ. The results indicate that implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000-30,000 threshold. When each device is compared incrementally, BioMonitor 2-AF dominates Reveal LINQ and Confirm RX. LIMITATIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis for implantable cardiac monitors is based on a strong assumption of clinical equivalence and should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: All three implantable cardiac monitors could be considered cost-effective at a £20,000-30,000 threshold, compared with standard of care monitoring, for cryptogenic stroke patients with no atrial fibrillation detected after 24 hours of external electrocardiographic monitoring; however, further clinical studies are required to confirm their efficacy in cryptogenic stroke patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018109216. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An abnormal heart rhythm (atrial fibrillation) is an important cause of stroke. Clots form in the heart, break off, pass into blood vessels in the head and block the blood supply to parts of the brain. This is important to diagnose because atrial fibrillation can be treated with blood-thinning drugs, which can prevent further stroke. For this reason, all patients with stroke are tested for atrial fibrillation. Unfortunately, the standard tests, which include 24 hours of outpatient external heart monitoring, may miss the condition. Implantable cardiac monitors, which are small devices placed beneath the skin of the chest that can monitor the heart for up to 4 years, may be better than the standard tests. This study compared three different implantable cardiac monitors [BioMonitor 2-AF™ (Biotronik SE & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany), Confirm Rx™ (Abbott Laboratories, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and Reveal LINQ™ (Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] to determine how effective they are at detecting atrial fibrillation in people who have had a cryptogenic stroke (a stroke for which no cause is identified), whether or not they are better than standard monitoring and whether or not they offer good value for money. No evidence was found that directly compared the three implantable monitors in cryptogenic stroke patients. The limited evidence found suggested that all three monitors had few side effects; only one monitor (Reveal LINQ) had evidence that it was better than standard monitoring. By 36 months, 19% of patients had atrial fibrillation detected by Reveal LINQ compared with only 2.3% with conventional monitoring. There was insufficient information for the other monitors. Overall, implantable monitors offer value for money when compared with standard monitoring for people who have had a cryptogenic stroke and for whom atrial fibrillation has not been detected with standard tests.

Ethnic differences in health related quality of life for patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the association between ethnicity and health related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The EuroQol EQ-5D measure was administered to 1,978 patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK Asian Diabetes Study (UKADS): 1,486 of south Asian origin (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other south Asian) and 492 of white European origin. Multivariate regression using ordinary least square (OLS), Tobit, fractional logit and Censored Least Absolutes Deviations estimators was used to estimate the impact of ethnicity on both visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility scores for the EuroQol EQ-5D. RESULTS: Mean EQ-5D VAS and utility scores were lower among south Asians with diabetes compared to the white European population; the unadjusted effect on the mean EQ-5D VAS score was -7.82 (Standard error [SE] = 1.06, p < 0.01) and on the EQ-5D utility score was -0.06 (SE = 0.02, p < 0.01) (OLS estimator). After controlling for socio-demographic and clinical confounders, the adjusted effect on the EQ-5D VAS score was -9.35 (SE = 2.46, p < 0.01) and on the EQ-5D utility score was 0.06 (SE = 0.04), although the latter was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There was a large and statistically significant association between south Asian ethnicity and lower EQ-5D VAS scores. In contrast, there was no significant difference in EQ-5D utility scores between the south Asian and white European sub-groups. Further research is needed to explain the differences in effects on subjective EQ-5D VAS scores and population-weighted EQ-5D utility scores in this context.