Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment最新文献

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis is a neurological condition that causes disabilities and is most common in young adults. It imposes high financial costs affecting the quality of life of patients, families, and society. It is critical to measure the budgetary impact of new technologies to treat this disease.

Objective: The aim of the article is to estimate the budgetary impact of introducing alemtuzumab as an escalation therapy in patients diagnosed with Recurrent Remitting Multiple Sclerosis and treated in Quito, Ecuador.

Materials and methods: A cohort of 85 patients receiving treatment with disease-modifying therapies was used, within a 5-year timeframe, between 2021 and 2025. The baseline scenario, including the percentages of administration of the different drugs, is compared with the alternative scenario, including alemtuzumab. The cost assessment included only direct medical resources. To obtain local resources for management of the disease, a neurologist and clinical expert who treats most of the patients in Quito was consulted.

Results: Considering a cohort of 85 patients with active Recurrent Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, the average global budget impact in 5 years would be USD 10,603,230.00 in the base case and USD 9,995,817.00 in the alemtuzumab scenario.

Conclusion: The inclusion of alemtuzumab as escalation therapy represents budgetary savings over the next 5 years (2021-2025).

This article illustrates a consensus opinion of an expert panel on the need and usefulness of a framework for price and reimbursement (P&R) process and managed entry agreements (MEAs) for orphan medicines in Italy. This opinion was gathered in three rounds: an introductory document was sent to the panel and discussed during a recorded online meeting. A second document was sent to the panel for their review. In the third step the final document was validated. Members of the expert panel are the authors of the article. The panel agreed that Italy does not need a specific value framework for orphan medicines, driving the P&R process. Rather, a more structured value framework for all medicines tailored to the specific drugs can be useful. For orphan drugs, the panel advocated for a multidisciplinary approach and the contribution of different stakeholders to value assessment, and acknowledged the importance of addressing, more than for other drugs, unmet needs, equity issues and societal value. The panel raised the need of increasing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. Experts, acknowledging the growing criticisms in implementation of outcome-based agreements in Italy, expressed their position against their abandonment in favour of discounts only and supported orphan medicines as natural candidates for these agreements. Finally, the panel made some recommendations on the appraisal process for orphan medicines, including an early discussion on the uncertainty of the evidence generated and the adoption of a structured approach to identify the agreement, which better responds to the uncertainty.

Objectives: Using the case study of patisiran and inotersen, we conducted a narrative comparative analysis of the health technology assessment (HTA) agency appraisals of these two first-in-class transthyretin gene silencers, which represent exceptional advances in the treatment of hereditary transthyretin-mediated (hATTR) amyloidosis, a rare and multisystemic disease. Despite the impact of each product on the treatment landscape, the majority of HTAs are only considered standard of care as a comparator, resulting in a void of information and limited comprehension of the clinical and pharmacoeconomic differences between the two treatments.

Methods: A search was conducted internationally for HTA reports, and only instances where assessment decisions for both treatments were publicly available were included in the present analysis. The HTA reports were analyzed broadly for the assessment of clinical and pharmacoeconomic evidence. Only economic models considering both patisiran and inotersen were included in this analysis.

Results: A total of nine agencies with public assessment reports for both treatments were identified. HTA agency assessments for both treatments were essentially positive; however, differences were noted in the final recommendations, place in treatment or reimbursed indications, and in the narrative of the evaluations. Only the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) assessment for patisiran evaluated an economic model comparing the two treatments.

Conclusions: The differences summarized in this comparative analysis may provide a more comprehensive overview of the two treatments.

Background: Interleukin (IL) inhibitors achieve greater levels of efficacy than older systemic therapies. We calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) of ixekizumab compared with other IL inhibitors approved in Italy for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Methods: The clinical efficacy was evaluated in terms of NNT, based on the results of a recent network meta--analysis (NMA) by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The NMA investigated many systemic and biological treatments, but this analysis compared only the efficacy of the following IL inhibitors - brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab and ustekinumab - for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Drugs were compared and ranked according to effectiveness considering the PASI (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) 90 score.

Results: One-hundred and forty trials (51,749 patients) were included in the NMA. Considering the proportion of patients who achieve PASI90, ixekizumab showed the lowest NNT among all comparators (ixekizumab 2.01 [2.46-3.00]; risankizumab 2.05 [2.50-3-05]; guselkumab 2.16 [2.68-3.36]; secukinumab 2.40 [2.90-3.51]; brodalumab 2.61 [3.18-3.88]; ustekinumab 3.44 [4.12-4.95]; tildrakizumab 3.10 [4.15-5.59].

Conclusion: The findings show that ixekizumab is the most effective option (NNT) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to understand the potential use of single agents and drug combinations in multiple myeloma (MM) across treatment lines in the years 2021 and 2023.

Methods: The method used was Delphi Panel Method survey, administered to European Myeloma Network (EMN) Italy Working Group centres. Future treatments were identified assessing all available web-based information sources, including therapies (single drugs or combinations) with strong evidence of efficacy, likely to be on the Italian market in 2021 and 2023. Participants were asked to report on the likelihood of prescription for MM therapies, across treatment lines.

Results: Across the 15 centres taking part in the survey, about 890 patients per year are forecasted to receive a new diagnosis of MM. In 2021, the Panel forecasted 66% of 1L-TE (transplant eligible) patients will be treated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and 32% of patients with daratumumab-bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (DVTd), with a substantial decrease of VTD (15%) and a marked increase of DVTd (81%) forecasted for 2023. The 2L and 3L R(lenalidomide)-based combination treatments are expected to drop and will likely be substituted by a steep increase in P(pomalidomide)-based regimes (from 7% to 23%). On the contrary, in 3L treatment, all combination therapies (with the exception of IsaPd - isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone) are expected to lose market share in favour of the most recent new therapies.

Conclusions: Expert Panel agrees that many different new drugs and combinations will be used in MM, with different mechanisms of action, both at diagnosis and in subsequent phases of the disease, with a corresponding decline of the drugs currently used.