A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Background

Biologics are used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis refractory to conventional treatment. In order to allocate healthcare spending efficiently, costly biologics for inflammatory bowel diseases are an important target for cost-effectiveness analyses. The aim of this study was to systemically review all published literature on the cost-effectiveness of biologics for inflammatory bowel diseases and to evaluate the methodological quality of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Methods

A literature search was performed using Medline (Ovid), Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS. All cost-utility analyses comparing biologics with conventional medical treatment, another biologic treatment, placebo, or surgery for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases in adults were included in this review. All costs were converted to the 2014 euro. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by Drummond’s, Philips’, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

Results

Altogether, 25 studies were included in the review. Among the patients refractory to conventional medical treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from dominance to 549,335 €/Quality-Adjusted Life Year compared to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with conventional medical treatment. When comparing biologics with another biologic treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from dominance to 24,012,483 €/Quality-Adjusted Life Year. A study including both direct and indirect costs produced more favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than those produced by studies including only direct costs.

Conclusions

With a threshold of 35,000 €/Quality-Adjusted Life Year, biologics seem to be cost-effective for the induction treatment of active and severe inflammatory bowel disease. Between biologics, the cost-effectiveness remains unclear.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for the Treatment of Depressive Disorders in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

BackgroundFor the treatment of depressive disorders, the framework of collaborative care has been recommended, which showed improved outcomes in the primary care sector. Yet, an earlier literature review did not find sufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care.PurposeTo systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care, compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care.MethodsA systematic literature search in major databases was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. To ensure comparability across studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2012 using country-specific gross domestic product inflation rates, and were adjusted to international dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP).ResultsIn total, 19 cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed. The included studies had sample sizes between n = 65 to n = 1,801, and time horizons between six to 24 months. Between 42% and 89% of the CHEC quality criteria were fulfilled, and in only one study no risk of bias was identified. A societal perspective was used by five studies. Incremental costs per depression-free day ranged from dominance to US$PPP 64.89, and incremental costs per QALY from dominance to US$PPP 874,562.ConclusionDespite our review improved the comparability of study results, cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care is ambiguous depending on willingness to pay. A still considerable uncertainty, due to inconsistent methodological quality and results among included studies, suggests further cost-effectiveness analyses using QALYs as effect measures and a time horizon of at least 1 year.     

用于治疗类风湿性关节炎的JAK 抑制剂

类风湿性关节炎是一种临床常见的慢性自身免疫性疾病,发病过程中滑膜组织及细胞分泌的大量细胞因子通过不同途径激活JAK/STAT 信号通路,并导致病变。因此,选择JAK 抑制剂针对性地阻断JAK/STAT 通路,可达到改善类风湿性关节炎病理过程的目的。概述JAK/STAT 信号通路的组成与结构、功能与机制以及在类风湿性关节炎发病过程中的作用,并着重介绍若干具代表性的已上市和尚处于临床及临床前研究阶段的JAK 抑制剂在类风湿性关节炎治疗中的应用研究。     

The Rehabilitation Unit in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

The Devonshire Royal Hospital, Buxton, England, was developed from a spa hospital into the Manchester Regional Centre for Rheumatism and Rehabilitation. Patients with active rheumatoid disease are admitted to the hospital''s Rheumatism Service, not to the Rehabilitation Unit. Fifty per cent of patients admitted to the Rehabilitation Unit have rheumatoid arthritis, with reablement or resettlement as their main problem. Nine hundred and eighty-eight rheumatoid patients admitted in a period of five years had chronic disease but recent disability (633 off work under one year). Their average hospital stay was 10 weeks. Five hundred and forty-four were admitted severely disabled; 247 were discharged so graded. One hundred and thirty-eight were fit for some work on admission and 498 on discharge. Sixty-five per cent of housewives could run their homes. In a sample of 100 male rheumatoid patients, 39 men were fit for their own jobs and were easily placed; 43 needed lighter work and over 20 of these were adequately resettled when checked at three and 36 months. The earnings of these men exceeded the cost of rehabilitation for the whole group.     

Total Hip Replacement for the Treatment of End Stage Arthritis of the Hip: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Evolvements in the design, fixation methods, size, and bearing surface of implants for total hip replacement (THR) have led to a variety of options for healthcare professionals to consider. The need to determine the most optimal combinations of THR implant is warranted. This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness of different types of THR used for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in major health databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews published from 2008 onwards comparing different types of primary THR in patients with end stage arthritis of the hip were included.

Results

Fourteen RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. Patients experienced significant post-THR improvements in Harris Hip scores, but this did not differ between impact types. There was a reduced risk of implant dislocation after receiving a larger femoral head size (36 mm vs. 28 mm; RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.78) or cemented cup (vs. cementless cup; pooled odds ratio: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.89). Recipients of cross-linked vs. conventional polyethylene cup liners experienced reduced femoral head penetration and revision. There was no impact of femoral stem fixation and cup shell design on implant survival rates. Evidence on mortality and complications (aseptic loosening, femoral fracture) was inconclusive.

Conclusions

The majority of evidence was inconclusive due to poor reporting, missing data, or uncertainty in treatment estimates. The findings warrant cautious interpretation given the risk of bias (blinding, attrition), methodological limitations (small sample size, low event counts, short follow-up), and poor reporting. Long-term pragmatic RCTs are needed to allow for more definitive conclusions. Authors are encouraged to specify the minimal clinically important difference and power calculation for their primary outcome(s) as well CONSORT, PRISMA and STROBE guidelines to ensure better reporting and more reliable production and assessment of evidence.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Prevent Disability in Leprosy: A Systematic Review

Background

Prevention of disability (POD) is one of the key objectives of leprosy programmes. Recently, coverage and access have been identified as the priority issues in POD. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of POD interventions is highly relevant to understanding the barriers and opportunities to achieving universal coverage and access with limited resources. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the quality of existing cost-effectiveness evidence and discuss implications for future research and strategies to prevent disability in leprosy and other disabling conditions.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We searched electronic databases (NHS EED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS) and databases of ongoing trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/, www.who.int/trialsearch). We checked reference lists and contacted experts for further relevant studies. We included studies that reported both cost and effectiveness outcomes of two or more alternative interventions to prevent disability in leprosy. We assessed the quality of the identified studies using a standard checklist for critical appraisal of economic evaluations of health care programmes. We found 66 citations to potentially relevant studies and three met our criteria. Two were randomised controlled trials (footwear, management of neuritis) and one was a generic model-based study (cost per DALY). Generally, the studies were small in size, reported inadequately all relevant costs, uncertainties in estimates, and issues of concern and were based on limited data sources. No cost-effectiveness data on self-care, which is a key strategy in POD, was found.

Conclusion/Significance

Evidence for cost-effectiveness of POD interventions for leprosy is scarce. High quality research is needed to identify POD interventions that offer value for money where resources are very scarce, and to develop strategies aimed at available, affordable and sustainable quality POD services for leprosy. The findings are relevant for other chronically disabling conditions, such as lymphatic filariasis, Buruli ulcer and diabetes in developing countries.