BackgroundSeveral biologic therapies are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients who have had an inadequate response to two or more synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). NICE does not specifically recommend switching from one biologic to another, and only ustekinumab (UST; STELARA®, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Horsham, PA, USA) is recommended after anti-tumour necrosis factor failure. Secukinumab (SEC; COSENTYX®, Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and certolizumab pegol (CZP; CIMZIA®, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) have not previously been appraised by NICE.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP and SEC for treating active PsA in adults in whom DMARDs have been inadequately effective.DesignSystematic review and economic model.Data sourcesFourteen databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 2016 for CZP and SEC studies; update searches were run to identify new comparator studies.Review methodsClinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) methods to investigate the relative efficacy of SEC and CZP compared with comparator therapies. A de novo model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEC and CZP compared with the other relevant comparators. The model was specified for three subpopulations, in accordance with the NICE scope (patients who have taken one prior DMARD, patients who have taken two or more prior DMARDs and biologic-experienced patients). The models were further classified according to the level of concomitant psoriasis.ResultsNineteen eligible RCTs were included in the systematic review of short-term efficacy. Most studies were well conducted and were rated as being at low risk of bias. Trials of SEC and CZP demonstrated clinically important efficacy in all key clinical outcomes. At 3 months, patients taking 150 mg of SEC [relative risk (RR) 6.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 15.43] or CZP (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.94 to 5.56) were more likely to be responders than patients taking placebo. The NMA results for the biologic-naive subpopulations indicated that the effectiveness of SEC and CZP relative to other biologics and each other was uncertain. Limited data were available for the biologic-experienced subpopulation. Longer-term evidence suggested that these newer biologics reduced disease progression, with the benefits being similar to those seen for older biologics. The de novo model generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three subpopulations and three psoriasis subgroups. In subpopulation 1 (biologic-naive patients who had taken one prior DMARD), CZP was the optimal treatment in the moderate–severe psoriasis subgroup and 150 mg of SEC was optimal in the subgroups of patients with mild–moderate psoriasis or no concomitant psoriasis. In subpopulation 2 (biologic-naive patients who had taken two or more prior DMARDs), etanercept (ETN; ENBREL®, Pfizer Inc., New York City, NY, USA) is likely to be the optimal treatment in all subgroups. The ICERs for SEC and CZP versus best supportive care are in the region of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In subpopulation 3 (biologic-experienced patients or patients in whom biologics are contraindicated), UST is likely to be the optimal treatment (ICERs are in the region of £21,000–27,000 per QALY). The optimal treatment in subpopulation 2 was sensitive to the choice of evidence synthesis model. In subpopulations 2 and 3, results were sensitive to the algorithm for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index costs. The optimal treatment is not sensitive to the use of biosimilar prices for ETN and infliximab (REMICADE®, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, NJ, USA).ConclusionsSEC and CZP may be an effective use of NHS resources, depending on the subpopulation and subgroup of psoriasis severity. There are a number of limitations to this assessment, driven mainly by data availability.Future workTrials are needed to inform effectiveness of biologics in biologic-experienced populations.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033357.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

No abstract

Objective: What are the costs, benefits and harms of immediate birth compared with expectant management in women with prolonged preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) at 34 +0 -36 +6 weeks of gestation and detection of vaginal or urine group B streptococcus (GBS)?Design: Mathematical decision model comprising three independent decision trees.Setting: UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective.Population: Women testing positive for GBS with PPROM at 34 +0 -36 +6 weeks of gestation. Methods:The model estimates lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using evidence from randomised trials, UK NHS data sources and further observational studies. Simulated events include neonatal infections, morbidity associated with preterm birth and consequences of caesarean birth. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed. Main outcome measures: QALYs, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results:In this population, immediate birth dominates expectant management: it is more effective (average lifetime QALYs, 24.705 versus 24.371) and it is cheaper (average lifetime costs, £14,372 versus £19,311). In one-way sensitivity analysis, results are robust to all but the odds ratio estimating the relative effect on incidence of infections. Threshold analysis shows that the odds of infection only need to be >1.5% with expectant management for the benefit of avoiding infections to outweigh the disadvantages of immediate birth. In PSA, immediate birth is the preferred option in >80% of simulations.