Considerazioni sui farmaci biologici nel trattamento della psoriasi a placche e loro impatto economico. Focus su etanercept
- 6 Downloads
Parole chiaveanti-TNF-α budget impact costo psoriasi a placche terapie biologiche
Plaque psoriasis is a common inflammatory skin condition with a significant impact on quality of life and social costs. The prevalence of psoriasis is about 2–3%. Recent developments in systemic targeted therapies, like biological agents (anti-T-cell agents and inhibitors of tumour-necrosis-factor-α), have offered an alternative treatment approach which may translate into disease control and improvement of quality of life. The British Association of Dermatologists Guidelines (2005) stated that etanercept should be considered the first choice for patients with significant and stable psoriasis. A Consensus Paper of Italian Dermatologists has recently stated (2008) that, according to the ‘physiologic’ paradigm of selection among TNF-antagonists linked to more or less physiologic mechanisms of action, etanercept appears to be the anti-TNF of choice for treating most patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, possibly even at an early stage. Etanercept, unlike other biological agents, is approved for the intermittent treatment (up to 24 weeks) of the psoriasis in Europe. Overall, the biological agents showed high efficacy in the treatment of patients who have not responded to other systemic therapies. No head-to-head studies comparing those agents are available in the peer-reviewed literature, but the economic impact showed higher cost of other biological agents compared to intermittent etanercept in the treatment of psoriasis. It would seem reasonable to state that intermittent therapy with etanercept results in a more contained budget impact in comparison to the other suitable biological agents for the treatment of psoriasis.
Taking for granted the general recognition of innovation of the new biological therapies, the debate is now focused on the sustainability of the expense for these therapies by National Health Services. Considering this need, the saving opportunity offered by an intermittent biological therapy seems to be remarkable.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Williams HC. Dermatology. In: Stevens A, Raftery J (eds). Health care needs assessment: the epidemiologically based needs assessment reviews: second series. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1997Google Scholar
- 8.Sato R, Piercy J, Kay S, et al. Higher psoriasis disease severity is associated with increased comorbidities in Europe. Poster presented at the Autumn Meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Rhodes, Greece, 2006Google Scholar
- 13.Horn L. National Psoriasis Foundation survey data. Oral presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology. Washington, DC, Oct 30, 2006Google Scholar
- 14.Enbrel. Riassunto delle caratteristiche del prodottoGoogle Scholar
- 21.Remicade. Riassunto delle caratteristiche del prodottoGoogle Scholar
- 23.Humira. Riassunto delle caratteristiche del prodottoGoogle Scholar
- 24.Papp K, Poulin Y, Bissonnette R, et al. Assessment of the long-term safety of etanercept for the treatment of psoriasis in an adult Canadian population. Poster presented at EADV Fall 2008Google Scholar
- 25.National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis. Technology Appraisal Guidance n. 103, July 2006Google Scholar
- 26.National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Infliximab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis. Technology Appraisal Guidance n. 134, January 2008Google Scholar
- 28.Chiou CF. Cost-efficacy comparison of biologics in the treatment of psoriasis. Presented at 62th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Washington, DC, February 2004Google Scholar
- 29.Lloyd A, Reeves P, Conway P, et al. Economic evaluation of etanercept in the management of chronic plaque psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2008 Sep 19. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 30.Martini P, Mazzatenta C, Grazzini M. I costi delle terapie biologiche. Psoriasis 2007; 2: 36–9Google Scholar