-
Pharmacotherapy Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of risdiplam on motor and respiratory function in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of risdiplam on motor and respiratory function in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2023. We included pre-post studies that determined the effect of risdiplam on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP-INTEND), the 32-item Motor Function Measure (MFM32), the Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM), the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale - Expanded (HFMSE), respiratory function, and the proportion of risdiplam-related adverse events in a population with SMA (phenotypes 1 and 2/3). Meta-analyses were also performed where possible. Eleven studies were included. After 12 months of treatment, 57% of participants with SMA1 achieved a CHOP-INTEND score ≥ 40 points, and more than half were able to feed orally and had head control. In SMA2/3, MFM32, RULM, and HFMSE increased by 2.09 (1.17, 3.01), 1.73 (1.25, 2.20), and 1.00 (0.40, 1.59) points, respectively. Efficacy on respiratory function in SMA2/3 was inconsistent. Finally, 16% of participants experienced adverse events, but serious adverse events could not be quantified due to a lack of cases. The limited available evidence suggests that risdiplam is an effective and safe drug for the treatment of SMA. In addition, long-term clinical benefit may be partly determined by the stage of disease at which treatment is initiated.
Topics: Child; Infant; Humans; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal; Azo Compounds; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 37574770
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2866 -
Value in Health Regional Issues Jul 2024This study aims to systematically collect data on cost-effectiveness analyses that assess technologies to treat type I and II spinal muscular atrophy and evaluate their...
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to systematically collect data on cost-effectiveness analyses that assess technologies to treat type I and II spinal muscular atrophy and evaluate their recommendations.
METHODS
A structured electronic search was conducted in 4 databases. Additionally, a complementary manual search was conducted. Complete economic studies that evaluated nusinersen, risdiplam, onasemnogene abeparvovec (OA), and the best support therapy (BST) from the health system's perspective were selected. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with various thresholds for the analysis. The review was registered a priori in PROSPERO (CRD42022365391).
RESULTS
Twenty studies were included in the analyses. They were all published between 2017 and 2022 and represent the recommendations in 8 countries. Most studies adopted 5, 6, or 10-state Markov models. Some authors took part in multiple studies. Four technologies were evaluated: BST (N = 14), nusinersen (N = 19), risdiplam (N = 5), and OA (N = 9). OA, risdiplam, and nusinersen were considered inefficient compared with the BST. Risdiplam and OA were generally regarded as cost-effective when compared with nusinersen. Because nusinersen is not a cost-effective drug, no recommendation can be derived from this result. Risdiplam and OA were compared in 2 studies that presented opposite results.
CONCLUSIONS
Nusinersen, risdiplam, and OA are being adopted worldwide as a treatment for spinal muscular atrophy. Despite that, the pharmacoeconomic analyses show that the technologies are not cost-effective compared with the BST. The lack of controlled studies for risdiplam and OA hamper any conclusions about their face-to-face comparison.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal; Oligonucleotides; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Azo Compounds; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 38669792
DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2024.02.002