ObjectivesTo analyse the treatment sequencing assumptions after failure on a first-line biologic in cost-effectiveness models of treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and to compare them with the most recent treatment guidelines.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit and the Cochrane Library databases used free text and Medical Subject Headings terms including psoriasis, biologic therapies indicated for psoriasis, and all types of economic evaluations. Two researchers performed 2-level abstract screening for articles meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria. Assumptions about treatment pathways after first-line biologic failure in the cost-effectiveness models were analysed. A second systematic search was performed for psoriasis clinical practice guidelines. Sequence assumptions were compared with treatment guideline recommendations.ResultsOf 25 cost-effectiveness modelling studies identified, ten estimated the incremental cost per responder; time horizons varied (12 weeks–18 months) and treatment sequencing was not considered. In 15 studies where treatment sequencing was considered, with time horizons up to 10 years, five studies included only a switch to nonsystemic therapy or best supportive care after first-line biologic failure. Another five of the 15 treatment-pathway studies were available only as abstracts with no details of the sequence assumptions. In five of the 15 studies, first-line biologic failure was followed by second-line biologic monotherapy, one of the recommendations in current treatment guidelines. In only one of these five studies was the efficacy of the second-line biologic adjusted downwards, compared with first-line treatment. Only one of these studies considered dose titration with a first-line biologic and none combination therapy (biologic plus methotrexate or phototherapy) after first-line biologic failure, as recommended in some treatment guidelines.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness models of first-line biologics for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis either do not include subsequent treatment regimens or include only some of the regimens recommended in current treatment guidelines. Results may be sensitive to assumptions about treatment sequencing and the choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment regimens.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0130-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

dynamic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), at the time of market entry and by year thereafter. While experts were not aware of any existing guidelines, the predominant view was that although using the brand price for the studied drug would be a conservative approach, it is reasonable to account for price reductions after patent expiration for all drugs considered. ConClusions: Drug price variations may introduce a source of uncertainty in CEA, as both timing of entry and level of generic drug pricing are unknown. There is currently no consensus on how this should be considered. Failure to incorporate generic drug entry in CEA is likely to yield overestimates of ICER for treatments used over long-term.

Introduction Multimodal prehabilitation has been touted as a potential strategy to better prepare our elderly and frail patients for major surgery. While randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have been done to investigate the effect of prehabilitation on various surgical cohorts, most of these studies have focused on single modality prehabilitation and without an emphasis on the elderly. This systematic review aims to assess the effect of a multimodal prehabilitation program on elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. MethodsThis protocol has been written according to the PRISMA-P statement and is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number 250281). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases will be searched. Only randomized controlled trials with an average study population age ≥65 that has undergone major abdominal operation with at least two components (physical, nutritional, psychological) of prehabilitation will be included. Clinical outcomes that will be collected include post-operative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission and peri-operative 6-minute walking distance. The risk of bias in included studies will be assessed. Data will be pooled where possible. DiscussionThis systematic review will evaluate and establish the effectiveness of multimodal prehabilitation for the elderly, who represents the group of patients most likely to benefit from prehabilitation. This review with its focus on the elderly will provide us with fresh insight into the utility of prehabilitation that will better inform policy makers in its implementation.PROSPERO Registration: On 20/04/2021, ID 250281