Systematic review and analysis of evidences on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of biological drugs for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis

Technology: Infliximab and comparator biological such as adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab. Conditions: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) Issue: Infliximab is registered to be used in patients with AS. The aim of the Report is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab and comparator biologicals for the treatment of adult AS. Methods: Systematic literature review and analysis as well as meta-analysis (direct and indirect comparison) of published randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) were performed, all relevant health economics literature were identified ad analysed. Results: Clinical efficacy of biological therapies is based on good clinical evidences regarding to all clinical efficacy endpoints (ASAS20, ASAS40, ASAS 5/6, and BASDAI 50% response). Altogether, 22 trials are included in our meta-analysis, 12 infliximab, 3 adalimumab studies, 6 etanercept and 1 golimumab. Efficacy of biological treatments for the treatment of AS has been established by clinical scientific evidences, significant improvement at all outcomes considered was confirmed. According to the results of indirect comparison, there were no significant difference between biological treatments and placebo in terms of safety and tolerability endpoints. We found no significant difference between the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab therapies. Cost-utility analysis of adalimumab and/or infliximab, etanercept and golimumab treatment for AS were performed in the UK, Canada, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain and France. There are no cost-utility studies from Eastern Central Europe. Implications for decision making: Efficacy of infliximab and comparator biologicals for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) was proved by clinical evidence, significant improvement at all outcomes considered was confirmed. We found no significant differences in efficacy and safety of different biological treatments. Health economics results suggest that biological therapies are cost-effective alternatives for the treatment of AS in group of developed high income countries. There is a lack of health economics results in Central-Eastern European countries however these data are more and more required by governments and funders as part of the company economic dossiers.

Cost of illness in benign prostatic hyperplasia: A review

The paper provides a systematic review on the cost-of-illness studies in an age-associated condition with high prevalence, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), published in Medline between 2005 and 2015. Overall 11 studies were included, which were conducted in 8 countries. In the US, the annual direct medical costs per patient ranged from $255 to $5,729, while in Europe from €253 to €1,251. In 2008, in the UK total annual direct medical costs of BPH were £180.8 million at national level. In the US, overall costs of BPH management in the private sector were estimated at $3.9 billion annually, of which $500 million was attributable to productivity loss (year 1999). Due to demographic factors and possible surgical innovations in the field of urology, the costs of BPH are likely to increase in the future. Over the next decade the age of retirement is projected to rise, consequently, the indirect costs related to aging-associated conditions such as BPH are expected to soar. To promote the transparent and cost-effective management of BPH, development of rational clinical guidelines would be essential that may lead to significant improvement in quality of care as well as reduction in healthcare expenditure.