METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.
RESULTS: A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I2=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I2=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I2=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION: The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study in which all CD patients seen in two tertiary referral hospitals in Malaysia were recruited. Patients were stratified into two cohorts; cohort 1 was patients diagnosed from year 1991 to 2000 and cohort 2 was patients diagnosed from year 2001 to 2010. These time cohorts were selected based on initial availability of biologic agents in Malaysia in year 2000. Details of demography, disease location, medications and cumulative surgical rates over 7 years were recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 207 patients were recruited: 70 from cohort 1 and 137 from cohort 2. Differences seen in terms of disease location, phenotype, and use of immunomodulatory therapy between the two cohorts were not significant. Patients who were ever exposed to biologics were significantly different between the two cohorts, approximately two times higher at 35.8% (n = 49) in cohort 2, and 18.6% (n = 13) in cohort 1, p = 0.011. There was a significant reduction in the 7-year cumulative intestinal surgical rates between cohort 1 and cohort 2, from 21.4% (n = 15) to 10.2% (n = 14), p = 0.028. However, there was no statistically significant difference in biologic exposure between those who underwent surgery and those who did not.
CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant reduction in intestinal surgical rates for Crohn's disease over the last two decades but does not appear to be associated with the increased use of biologics.
Results: This review discusses the current status of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy for SCI, criteria to considering for the application of MSC therapy and novel biological therapies that can be applied together with MSCs to enhance its efficacy. Bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMSCs), umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) and adipose tissue-derived MSCs (ADSCs) have been trialed for the treatment of SCI. Application of MSCs may minimize secondary injury to the spinal cord and protect the neural elements that survived the initial mechanical insult by suppressing the inflammation. Additionally, MSCs have been shown to differentiate into neuron-like cells and stimulate neural stem cell proliferation to rebuild the damaged nerve tissue.
Conclusion: These characteristics are crucial for the restoration of spinal cord function upon SCI as damaged cord has limited regenerative capacity and it is also something that cannot be achieved by pharmacological and physiotherapy interventions. New biological therapies including stem cell secretome therapy, immunotherapy and scaffolds can be combined with MSC therapy to enhance its therapeutic effects.
METHODS: The anonymised online survey included 27 items about paediatric rheumatology (PR) clinical care and training programmes. The survey was piloted and then distributed via Survey-Monkey™ between March and July 2019. It was sent to existing group lists of physicians and allied health professionals (AHPs), who were involved in the care pathways and management of children with rheumatic diseases in SE ASIA/ASIAPAC.
RESULTS: Of 340 participants from 14 countries, 261 participants had been involved in PR care. The majority of the participants were general paediatricians. The main reported barriers to providing specialised multidisciplinary service were the absence or inadequacy of the provision of specialists and AHPs in addition to financial issues. Access to medicines was variable and financial constraints cited as the major obstacle to accessing biological drugs within clinical settings. The lack of a critical mass of specialist paediatric rheumatologists was the main perceived barrier to PR training.
CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple challenges to PR services in SE ASIA/ASIAPAC countries. There is need for more specialist multidisciplinary services and greater access to medicines and biological therapies. The lack of specialist paediatric rheumatologists is the main barrier for greater access to PR training.