[Therapeutic equivalence of the new oral anticoagulants]

In an attempt to minimize the economic impact due to the incorporation of innovative drugs, health authorities have promoted and supported the evaluation and market positioning of drugs, as equivalent therapeutic alternatives. This issue has recently gained importance, possibly due to the current economic crisis. The equivalent therapeutic alternatives are justified by the need to compete on price, and by the authorities recommendation to establish therapeutic equivalence, price and financing of medicinal products at the same time. The establishment of the new oral anticoagulants and the equivalent therapeutic alternatives is a problematic issue if it is based on the absence of direct comparisons between different drugs and the questionable methodology used in the current indirect comparisons. Currently, it is difficult to determine when a new oral anticoagulant is more recommendable than others, but efforts are being made in order to propose alternatives for the decision based on patient characteristics.

Biological treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: indirect comparison

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Psoriasis is a chronic skin disease for which there is an increasing range of treatment options. Biological agents (ustekinumab, adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept) are indicated for moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis in adults who fail to respond to, have a contraindication to, or are intolerant to other systemic therapies including cyclosporine, methotrexate and PUVA Unfortunately, with new drugs, the pivotal trials leading to their licensing are often placebo-controlled trials rather than comparative trials vs. established therapies. Therefore, inference on comparative effectiveness of the newer agents must be derived indirectly, through estimation of effects of the new agents vs. a common comparator. The objective of this study is to compare the relative efficacy of the biological agents through a systematic review of the indirect clinical trial evidence.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for clinical trials of biological agents in psoriasis. Pivotal, randomized, double-blind, controlled (placebo) trials using intention-to-treat analysis were selected for detailed analysis. Trials must include PASI 75 as a primary end point. The indirect comparison was performed using the method of Bucher adjusted with the ITC calculator (Indirect Treatment Comparisons of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health), etanercept being the reference drug. We defined delta value for therapeutic equivalence as a difference in the efficacy of 25% among the different treatment options.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fourteen studies (four for ustekinumab, three for adalimumab, three for infliximab and four for etanercept) were included. The indirect comparison results reveal that ustekinumab, adalimumab and infliximab were statistically superior to etanercept with an absolute risk difference for PASI 75 of 12% (95% CI = 5·9-18%), 11% (95% CI = 5·3-16·7%) and 24% (29·7-18·3%) respectively. However, in all situations, the 95% confidence interval does not achieve clinical relevance as no delta exceeds the previously set value (25%).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Ustekinumab, adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept can be regarded as clinical equivalents for the treatment of psoriasis. Choice between these agents therefore depends on their relative safety profiles, individual contra-indications and cost effectiveness.

[A proposed guideline for economic evaluation of health technologies]

Over the last few years, economic evaluation of health technologies has become a major tool used by European health policy decision-makers to create strategies for prioritizing the allocation of health resources and the approval of new technologies. Spain was a pioneer in proposing the standardization of methodology applicable to economic evaluation studies. However, because health policy decision-makers refused to support the initiative, the methodology was never put into practice. In the medium term, evidence of the economic value of new health technologies financed by the national health system will probably be increasingly required. At that time, stakeholders and decision-makers will have to agree upon a clear and concise set of rules on the technical and methodological issues that must be followed by economic evaluations of health technologies. Consequently, we have provided guidelines and recommendations for producing first-rate economic evaluations. The recommendations appear under seventeen headings or sections. In each case, the recommended requirements to be satisfied by an economic evaluation of health technologies are provided and each recommendation is followed by a commentary, providing a justification and comparing and contrasting the proposal with other available alternatives.