Preview

PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology

Advanced search

PHARMACOECONOMIC SUBSTANTIATION OF APPLICATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BIOLOGICAL AGENTS IN OUT-PATIENT CONDITIONS

https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2016.9.1.039-048

Full Text:

Abstract

Objective. Carrying out of the comparative clinical and economic analysis of treatment of patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) by genetically engineered biological agents (GEBA) in conditions of round-the-clock and day-time in-patient departments.

Materials and Methods. In a basis pharmacoeconomic calculations on a method "cost minimization" was put the actual quantity of patients (57 persons) with RD who had previously been initiated and carried out GEBA therapy in conditions of round-the-clock in-patient department, and then the patients for eight months were observed and treated GEBA in day-time in-patient department of budgetary establishment of public health services of Omsk region "Clinical Cardiology Clinic".

Results. It demonstrated clinical efficiency of application of GEBA in conditions of a day-time in-patient department in the form of statistically significant decrease of the activity of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis on index DAS28 and stable effect on index BASDAI at ankylosing spondylitis with achievement of stable remission of diseases. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions of GEBA were recorded regardless of the conditions of stay of patients that testifies to identity of parameters of safety of carrying out of genetically engineered biological therapy (GEBT) in a day-time in-patient department. The economic effect of application of hospitalization replacement technologies within 8 months at 57 patients amounted to 2 072 934,1 rbl. In recalculation on quantity of patients in Omsk region (120) sum of economy of system of obligatory medical insurance will amount 4 361 142 rbl.

Conclusion. The parameter of a difference of costs at treatment by GEBA of patients with RD in conditions of round-the-clock and day-time in-patient departments in system of obligatory medical insurance testifies to necessity of wide introduction for a clinical practice of hospitalization replacement technologies at treatment by GEBA of patients with RD.

About the Authors

O. Yu. Korennova
Omsk State Medical University, Russian Ministry of Health
Russian Federation

MD, professor of Department of Internal Medicine and Family Medicine PDO,

Str. Lenina, 12, Omsk, Omsk region, Siberian Federal District,  644099



L. V. Shukil'
Omsk State Medical University, Russian Ministry of Health
Russian Federation

к.м.н., associate Professor of Department of pharmaceutical chemistry,

Str. Lenina, 12, Omsk, Omsk region, Siberian Federal District, 644099



S. N. Mal'tsev
Omsk Oblast Ministry of Health
Russian Federation

к.м.н., head of the formation of territorial programs of state guarantees and budget planning of the Department of Economics and Finance,

Str. Red Road, 6, Omsk, Omsk region, Siberian Federal District, 644099



I. A. Klinyshkov
Clinical Cardiology Clinic
Russian Federation

doctor-rheumatologist,

Str. Bul'varnay, 7, Omsk, Omsk region, Siberian Federal District, 644046



N. M. Leganova
Clinical Cardiology Clinic
Russian Federation

manager of the rheumatology department,

Str. Bul'varnay, 7, Omsk, Omsk region, Siberian Federal District, 644046



E. A. Turusheva
Clinical Cardiology Clinic
Russian Federation

к.м.н., manager of a day-time department,

Str. Bul'varnay, 7, Omsk, Omsk region, Siberian Federal District, 644046



T. V. Kropotina
Regional Hospital
Russian Federation

к.м.н., medical chief,

Str. Berezovay, 3 k.2 , Omsk, Omsk region, Siberian Federal District, 644111



References

1. Balabanova R.M., Amirdzhanova V.N., Nasonov E.L. Nauchpraktich. revmatol. 2012; T. 50 (6): 10-14.

2. Bunchuk N.V. Nauch-praktich. revmatol. 2006; 4: 4-10.

3. Vorob'ev P.A., Avksent'eva M.V., Yur'ev A.S., Sura M.V. Clinical and economic analysis (assessment, selection of medical technology and health care quality management) [Kliniko-ekonomicheskii analiz (otsenka, vybor meditsinskikh tekhnologii i upravlenie kachestvom meditsinskoi pomoshchi) (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2004; 404 s.

4. Issue of Clinical analysis in rheumatological practice. Institution of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences' Research Institute of Rheumatology RAMS them. VA Nasonova "All-Russian public organization" Association of Rheumatology Russia [Vypusk klinicheskikh razborov v revmatologicheskoi praktike. Uchrezhdenie Rossiiskoi akademii meditsinskikh nauk «Nauchno-issledovatel'skii institut revmatologii RAMN im. V.A. Nasonovoi», obshcherossiiskaya obshchestvennaya organizatsiya «Assotsiatsiya revmatologov Rossii» (in Russian)]. 2013; 136 s.

5. Godzenko A.A., Korsakova Yu.L., Badokin V.V. Methods for evaluation of inflammatory activity and the effectiveness of therapy in spondylitis [Metody otsenki vospalitel'noi aktivnosti i effektivnosti terapii pri spondiloartritakh (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2013; 48 s.

6. "Map-notification of side effects, adverse reaction or lack of expected therapeutic effect of the drug" URL: http://roszdravnadzor.ru/drugs/monitpringlp/documents/547. Accessed: 18.01.15

7. Nasonov E.L., Karateev D.E., Balabanova R.M. Rheumatoid arthritis. VA Nasonova Ed. EL Nasonova. Rheumatology. National leadership [Revmatoidnyi artrit. V.A. Nasonovoi Pod red. E.L. Nasonova. Revmatologiya. Natsional'noe rukovodstvo (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2008; 290-331.

8. Nasonov E.L., Karateev D.E. Nauch-praktich. revmatol. 2013; 51 (2): 163-169.

9. Resolution of the Government of the Omsk region on December 24, 2014 № 330-p "On the Territorial program of state guarantees of free medical care to citizens in Omsk Region for 2015 and the planning period of 2016 and 2017" [Postanovlenie Pravitel'stva Omskoi oblasti ot 24 dekabrya 2014 g. № 330-p «O Territorial'noi programme gosudarstvennykh garantii besplatnogo okazaniya grazhdanam meditsinskoi pomoshchi v Omskoi oblasti na 2015 god i na planovyi period 2016 i 2017 godov» (in Russian)].

10. The Ministry of Health of Russia Order dated November 12, 2012 № 900 n "On approval of the provision of medical care to adult population on the profile of" Rheumatology" [Prikaz Minzdrava Rossii ot 12 noyabrya 2012 g. № 900n «Ob utverzhdenii Poryadka okazaniya meditsinskoi pomoshchi vzroslomu naseleniyu po profilyu «Revmatologiya» (in Russian)].

11. The Russian Ministry of Health Order of March 11, 2013 № 121n "On Approval of the Requirements for the organization and execution of works (services) in the provision of primary health care, specialized (including high-tech), Emergency (including a specialized ambulance), palliative medical care, medical care at a spa treatment, in medical examinations, medical examinations, medical examinations and sanitary and anti-epidemic (preventive) measures in the framework of the provision of health care in transplantation (transplantation) of organs and (or) tissues, treatment of donor blood and (or) its components for medical purposes. ["Prikaz Minzdrava Rossii ot 11 marta 2013 g. № 121n «Ob utverzhdenii Trebovanii k organizatsii i vypolneniyu rabot (uslug) pri okazanii pervichnoi mediko-sanitarnoi, spetsializirovannoi (v tom chisle vysokotekhnologichnoi), skoroi (v tom chisle skoroi spetsializirovannoi), palliativnoi meditsinskoi pomoshchi, okazanii meditsinskoi pomoshchi pri sanatorno-kurortnom lechenii, pri provedenii meditsinskikh ekspertiz, meditsinskikh osmotrov, meditsinskikh osvidetel'stvovanii i sanitarno-protivoepidemicheskikh (profilakticheskikh) meropriyatii v ramkakh okazaniya meditsinskoi pomoshchi, pri transplantatsii (peresadke) organov i (ili) tkanei, obrashchenii donorskoi krovi i (ili) ee komponentov v meditsinskikh tselyakh» (in Russian)].

12. Order of the Russian Ministry of Health on 2 December 2014. № 796n "On Approval of the Regulations on the organization of the provision of specialized, including high-tech, health care" [Prikaz Minzdrava Rossii ot 2 dekabrya 2014 g. № 796n «Ob utverzhdenii Polozheniya ob organizatsii okazaniya spetsializirovannoi, v tom chisle vysokotekhnologichnoi, meditsinskoi pomoshchi» (in Russian)].

13. Rebrova O.Yu. Statistical analysis of medical data. The application package STATISTICA applications [Statisticheskii analiz meditsinskikh dannykh. Primenenie paketa prikladnykh programm STATISTICA (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2002; 312 s.

14. Rheumatology. Clinical guidelines. Ed. Acad. RAMS EL Nasonova.2nd ed. [Revmatologiya. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii. Pod red. akad. RAMN E.L. Nasonova. 2-e izd (in Russian)]. Moscow. 2010; 752 s.

15. Aaltonen K.J., Vikki L.M., Malmiaara A. et al. Systemic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of existing TNF blocking agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7:e30275.

16. Alonso-Ruiz A., Pijoan J.I., Ansuategui E. et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: systemic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and safety. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2008; 9: 52.

17. Baraliakos X., Listing J., Brandt J. et al. Persistent clinical response in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after 4 years of therapy with anti-TNF-monoclonal antibody infliximab. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2005; 64 (3): 1055 (abstract).

18. Beevor C.P., Hull R., Thomas A. et al. Anti TNFa therapy reduce emergency health services usage. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006; 65 (II): 176.

19. Bergman G.J., Hochberg M.C., Boers M. et al. Indirect comparison of tocilizumab and other biologic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to diseasemodifying antirheumatic drugs. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2010; 39: 425-441.

20. Bongartz T., Sutton A.J., Sweeting M.J. et al. Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: a systemic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006; 17: 2275-2285.

21. der Heijde D., Sieper J., Maksymowych W. et al. 2010 Update of the international ASAS recommendations for the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2011; 70: 905-8. DOI:10.1136/ard.2011.151563.

22. Devine E.B., Alfonso-Cristanchp R., Sullivan S.D. Effectiveness of biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: an indirect comparison approach. Pharmacotherapy. 2011; 31: 39-51.

23. Fransen J., Stucki G., van Reil P.L. Rheumatoid arthritis measures. Arthritis Rheum. 2003; 49: 214-24.

24. Gallego-Galisteo M., Villa-Rubio A., Alergre-del Rau E. et al. Indirect comparison of biological treatments in refractory rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011; on line.

25. Garrett S.L., Jenkinson T.R., Whitelock H.C. et al. A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). J. Rheumatol. 1994; 21: 2286-91.

26. Gartlehner G., Hansen R.A., Jonas B.L. et al. The comparative efficacy and safety of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systemic review and meta-analysis. J Rheumatol. 2006; 3: 2398-2407l.

27. Gartlehner G., Thieda P., Morgan L.C. et al. Drug class review. Targeted Immune Modulators. Cecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research. Oregon Health Science University. 2009.

28. Gomez-Reino J.J., Dasgupta B., Haugeberg G. et al. Mortality rate is reduced in RA patients treated with TNF antagonists. Data from Biobadaser. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006; 65 (II): 318.

29. Guyot P., Taylor P., Christensen R. et al. Abatacept with methotrexate versus other biologic agents in treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate: a network meta-analysis. Arthritis Research Ther. 2011; 13: R204.

30. Kawalec P., Mikrut A. The effectiveness of tofacitinib, a novel Janus kinase inhibitor, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rheumatol. 2013; 32: 1415-1424.

31. Kristensen L.E., Christensen R., Biddal H. et al. The number needed to treat for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab based on ACR50 response in three randomized controlled trials on established rheumatoid arthritis: a systemic literature review. Scand J Rheumatol. 2007; 36: 411-417.

32. Kristensen L.E., Jakobsen A.K., Bartels E.M. et al. The number needed to treat for secondgeneration biologics when treating established rheumatoid arthritis: a systemic quantitative review of randomized controlled trials. Scand J Rheumatol. 2010; May 5.

33. Leombruno J.P., Einarson T.R., Keystone E.C. The safety of antitumor necrosis factor tretments in rheumatoid arthritis: meta and exposure adjusted pooled analysis of serious adverse events. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008; 27 Aug.

34. Luqmani R.A., Bacon P.A., Moots R.J., Janssen B.A., Pall A., Emery P. et al. Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS). Q.J.Med. 1994; 87 (11): 671-8.

35. Mandema J.W., Salinger D.H., Baumgartner S.W., Gibbs M.A. A dose-response meta-analysis for quantifying relative efficacy of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Pharmacol&Ther. 2011; 90: 828-835.

36. Mease P.J., Antoni C.E., Gladman D.D. et al. Psoriatic arthritis assessment tools in clinical trials. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2005; 64: 1149-54.

37. Nam J.L., Winthrop K.L., Van Vollenhoven et al. Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of RA. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010; 69: 976-986.

38. Nixon R.M., Bansback N., Brennan A. Using mixed treatment comparison and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate efficacy of biologic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Stat Med. 2007; 26: 1237-1254.

39. Prevoo M.L., van't Hof M.A., Kuper H.H. et al. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan; 38 (1): 44-8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.1780380107.

40. Roy S. Cifaldi M.A. Number needed to treat for biologic therapies in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011; 70 (3): 432.

41. Salgado E., Maneiro J.R., Carmona L. Safety profile of protein kinase inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Ann Rheum Dis. DOI:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203116.

42. Salliot C., Finckh A., Katchamart W. et al. Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological antirheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional diseasemodifying antirheumatic drugs or to an anti-tumor necrosis factor agents: a meta- analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011; 70: 266-271.

43. Schmitz S., Adams R., Walsh C. et al. A mixed treatment comparison of the efficacy of anti-TNF agents in rheumatoid arthritis for methotrexate non-responders demonstrates differences between treatment: a Bayesian approach. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012; 71: 225-230.

44. Schmitz S., Adams R., Walsh C.D. et al. A mixed treatment comparison of the efficacy of anti-TNF agents in rheumatoid arthritis for methotrexate non-responders demonstrated differences between treatments: a Bayesian approach. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012; January 31.

45. Singh J.A., Christensen R., Wells G.A. et al. Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews. The Cochrane Library. 2009; 4.

46. Singh J.A., Wells G.A., Christensen R. et al. Adverse effects of biologics: a network metaanalysis and Cochrane overview (Review). The Cocgrane Library. 2011; 2.

47. Singh J.A., Wells G.A., Christensen R. et al. Adverse effects of biologics: a network metaanalysis and Cochrane overview (Review). The Cocgrane Library. 2012; 3.

48. Turksta E., Ng S.-K., Scuffham P.A. A mixed treatment comparison of the short- term efficacy of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011; 27: 1885-1897.

49. Van Gestel A.M., Haagsma C.J., van Riel P.L. Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum. 1998; 41 (10): 1845-50.

50. Vieira M.C., Wallenstein G., Bradley J. et al. Tofacitinib versus biologic treatments in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis facto inhibitors – a network meta-analisis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; 72 (3): 619.

51. Vieira M.C., Wallenstein G., Bradley J. et al. Tofacitinib versus biologic treatments with and without methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to traditional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs – a network metaanalysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012; 71 (3): 375.

52. Wiens A., Venson R., Pharm D. et al. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacotherapy. 2010; 30: 339-353.

53. Yazici Y., Moniz Reed D., Rosenblatt L. et al. Number needed to treat (NNT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTS) of biologics in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009; 68 (3): 583.


For citation:


Korennova O.Y., Shukil' L.V., Mal'tsev S.N., Klinyshkov I.A., Leganova N.M., Turusheva E.A., Kropotina T.V. PHARMACOECONOMIC SUBSTANTIATION OF APPLICATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BIOLOGICAL AGENTS IN OUT-PATIENT CONDITIONS. PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology. 2016;9(1):39-48. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2016.9.1.039-048

Views: 356


ISSN 2070-4909 (Print)
ISSN 2070-4933 (Online)