PurposeTo elucidate and compare benefit–risk preferences among Korean patients and physicians concerning cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) inhibitor treatments for arthritis.Materials and methodsSubjects included 100 patients with arthritis and 60 board-certified orthopedic surgeon physicians in South Korea. Through a systematic review of the literature, beneficial attributes of using Cox-2 inhibitors were defined as a decrease in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index for pain score and improvement in physical function. Likewise, risk attributes included upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications and cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. Discrete choice experiments were used to determine preferences for these four attributes among Korean patients and physicians. Relative importance and maximum acceptable risk for improving beneficial attributes were assessed by analyzing the results of the discrete choice experiment by using a conditional logit model.ResultsPatients ranked the relative importance of benefit–risk attributes as follows: pain reduction (35.2%); physical function improvement (30.0%); fewer CV adverse events (21.5%); fewer GI complications (13.4%). The physicians’ ranking for the same attributes was as follows: fewer CV (33.5%); pain reduction (32.4%); fewer GI complications (18.1%); physical function improvement (16.0%). Patients were more willing than physicians to accept risks when pain improved from 20% or 45% to 55% and physical function improved from 15% or 35% to 45%.ConclusionWe confirmed that patients and physicians had different benefit–risk preferences regarding Cox-2 inhibitors. Patients with arthritis prioritized the benefits of Cox-2 inhibitors over the risks; moreover, in comparison with the physicians, arthritis patients were more willing to accept the trade-off between benefits and risks to achieve the best treatment level. To reduce the preference gap and achieve treatment goals, physicians must better understand their patients’ preferences.
Alternative tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors and non-TNF biologics are available as treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis patients who exhibit inadequate response to TNF-α inhibitor (TNF-IR patients). These agents have considerable efficacy compared with placebo, but head-to-head comparisons among these agents have not been performed. The objective of this study was to use Bayesian approach to compare the effectiveness of cycling TNF-α inhibitors versus switching to non-TNF biologics in TNF-IR patients. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE and Cochrane library. Key endpoints were the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses of 20/50/70 and the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score change at six months. Bayesian outcomes were calculated as the probability that OR is greater than one and HAQ score change difference is less than zero. Compared with TNF-α inhibitors, non-TNF biologics were associated with higher ACR response rates; in ACR20, the OR was 1.639 for abatacept [P(OR > 1) = 90.7 %], 1.871 for rituximab [P(OR > 1) = 96.2 %] and 3.52 for tocilizumab [P(OR > 1) = 99.9 %]. Similar trends were shown in the HAQ change comparison; the median differences (MD) were -0.259 for abatacept [P(MD < 0) = 100 %], -0.160 for rituximab [P(MD < 0) = 98.2 %], and -0.200 for tocilizumab [P(MD < 0) = 99.3 %]. In conclusion, switching to non-TNF biologics was more effective than cycling TNF-α inhibitor in TNF-IR patients.
Clinical benefits and other social values should be reflected appropriately with cost-effectiveness in healthcare coverage. MCDA can be used to assess decision priorities for complicated health policy decisions, including reimbursement decisions. It is a promising method for making logical and transparent drug reimbursement decisions that consider a broad range of factors, which are perceived as important by relevant stakeholders.
Background
Transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis, also known as transthyretin cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is a poorly-recognized disease with delayed diagnosis and poor prognosis. This nationwide population-based study aimed to identify disease manifestations, economic burden, and mortality of patients with ATTR-CM.
Methods
Data of newly diagnosed patients with ATTR-CM between 2013 and 2018 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service were used, covering the entire population. Patient characteristics included comorbidities, medical procedures, and medication. Healthcare resource utilization and medical costs were observed as measures of the economic burden. The Kaplan–Meier survival curve and years of potential life lost (YPLL) from the general population were estimated for disease burden with ATTR CM.
Results
A total of 175 newly diagnosed patients with ATTR-CM were identified. The most common cardiac manifestation was hypertension (51.3%), while the most common non-cardiac manifestation was musculoskeletal disease (68.0%). Mean medical costs at the post-cohort entry date were significantly higher than those at the pre-cohort entry date ($1,864 vs. $400 per patient per month (PPPM), p < 0.001). Of the total medical costs during the study period, the proportion of inpatients cost was 12.9 times higher than the outpatients cost ($1,730 and $134 PPPM, respectively). The median survival time was 3.53 years from the first diagnosis of ATTR-CM, and the mean (SD) YPLL was 13.0 (7.7).
Conclusions
Patients with ATTR-CM had short survival and high medical costs. To reduce the clinical and economic burdens, carefully examining manifestations of disease in patients can help with early diagnosis and treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.