Search

Background: In the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, increasingly complex clinical scenarios necessitate practical tools for appropriate biologic therapy selection in individual patients. An Italian Delphi consensus panel provided guidance on biologic use in selected clinical scenarios. Methods: Ten experts defined statements under consideration, which were distributed as an online survey to a dermatologist panel. Plenary discussions of contentious statements were held to achieve consensus. Results: The survey was sent to 30 clinicians. After plenary discussions, consensus was reached on all 20 statements on the following topics: special populations; infections; comorbidities; immunogenicity; extra-cutaneous involvement; pregnancy; and adherence. Three statements required further discussion in order to gain consensus: use of subcutaneous biologics in mild liver impairment (final 94% agreement), use of any biologic in discoid lupus erythematosus (final 100% disagreement), and use of etanercept in patients with history of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and/or food (final 75% disagreement). Conclusions: This Delphi expert consensus on the use of biologics in psoriasis provides practical recommendations for dermatologists to use when choosing an appropriate biologic in challenging but common clinical scenarios. More data are required to clarify clinical differences of biologic drugs used to treat psoriasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Biologic therapies are considered to be cost effective by leading Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies and, therefore, eligible for reimbursement by public health services. However, biologic therapies entail sizable incremental costs and, besides, have a considerable financial impact that in Italy amounts to 13.7 % of the national health service's pharmaceutical expenditure. In the reimbursability decision process, an important role is played by both the drug efficacy data observed in pre-licensing RCTs and the economic modelling assumptions, as they give evidence on cost effectiveness. The administration of therapies in real practice settings is likely to produce a significant deviation from the results predicted by the models, theoretically outweighing the assumption on which the decision process is founded. This is a matter of concern for public health services and, consequently, an interesting topic to investigate. Methods: To overcome the lack of knowledge concerning the actual cost effectiveness of biologic therapies for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in the clinical practice setting in Italy, an observational study was conducted in 12 specialist centres on patients switching to biologic therapy within a 6-month enrolment window. Results: The study confirms in clinical practice the efficacy of the switch to biologic therapies, analysed using a number of clinical [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and itching VAS] and quality-of-life parameters. A general health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) improvement, with a 0.23 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) mean gain per patient, has been reported in the 6-month observation period. The direct medical costs to treat plaque psoriasis with biologic therapies amount to €15,073.7 per year (prior to their enrolment, the same patients cost €2,166.2 on an annual basis). After the switch to biologic agents, the cost per QALY during the first year of treatment amounts to €28,656.3. Conclusion: At least in the short-term, the clinical practice of the specialised Italian centres taking part in the study confirms that switching patients to a biologic drug produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparable with the values predicted by the HTA bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The efficacy and favorable safety profile of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are supported by several randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses. However, some concerns on the long-term safety of these drugs still exist, as these studies generally included small patient numbers and were performed in selected patient populations. Objective: This review presents and discusses current evidence on the safety of anti-TNFα agents in patients with psoriasis and PsA, with a focus on European registry studies and case reports of particular importance. Methods: Key studies on the safety of anti-TNFα agents in the treatment of adult patients with psoriasis or PsA were identified by a MEDLINE search (last updated 10 November 2011) based on several interrelated queries, with a focus on European registries. Other studies and case reports were included if deemed relevant. Studies concerning other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), were included as appropriate when data in psoriatic disease were unavailable or insufficient. Results: Available data on the safety of anti-TNFα agents such as etanercept in psoriasis and PsA appear reassuring, even if some concerns still exist. Most notably, data suggest a higher incidence of infection and lymphoma amongst patients treated with the anti-TNFα monoclonal antibodies infliximab and adalimumab compared with etanercept. Conclusion: The overall safety profile of monoclonal antibodies in patients with psoriasis, PsA and RA seems less favorable than that of etanercept, particularly in terms of risk of infection and hepatotoxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cost-effectiveness of biological treatments for psoriasis is not well determined and may vary from country to country. The objectives of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab compared with other anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents for the treatment of psoriasis in Italy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per patients achieving at least 75% improvement in the psoriasis area and severity index assessed over 24- and 48–50-week periods was calculated. Efficacy data were drawn from randomized controlled trials when available or from open label studies. Considering patients achieving psoriasis area and severity index at week 24 and 48–50, infliximab was dominant (more effective and less costly) over etanercept given at 50 mg twice weekly. In contrast, infliximab was not dominant over etanercept at other dosages or over adalimumab. When considering the impact of therapy on quality of life at Week 12 using the Dermatology Life Quality Index equal to zero, infliximab resulted more effective and less costly than etanercept. Therefore, infliximab seems to be cost-effective in the therapy of psoriasis. Further cost-efficacy evaluations based on head-to-head trials are necessary to address health economic considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a multicentre observational study regarding down-titration of adalimumab and etanercept in patients with psoriasis. The proportion of psoriatic patients treated with adalimumab or etanercept was assessed. Moreover, the study results showed that patients with higher disease activity during the time therapy had higher risks of relapse.