Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept, and tocilizumab as first-line treatments for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

The impact of COVID-19 and other factors on the usage status of the biologic drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: A study from Vietnam

OBJECTIVES

To describe the status of using biological Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and related factors. In addition, the study determined the impact of COVID-19 on the usage of bDMARDs.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study and included 219 RA patients over 18 years old. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test (p<0.05) were used to estimate the retention time and compare between different times. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the factors affecting the retention time of biological drugs (p<0.05).

RESULTS

Out of 1967 courses of treatment, there were 149 (7.6%) drug discontinuations, 760 (38.6%) doses extensions and 64 (3.3%) drug switch. Moderate disease level and choosing tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors initially were associated with retention time of COVID-19. Drug discontinuations and dose extensions increased after COVID-19 emergence. The retention time during COVID-19 was significantly different from that of pre-COVID-19. Gender, type of first-used bDMARD, conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and corticoid usage status, disease activity levels were associated with retention time.

CONCLUSION

The presence of COVID-19 has a significant effect on usage status of the biologic drug. Further longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the relationship between COVID-19 and drug usage as well as related factors.

Cost-consequence analysis of tocilizumab versus adalimumab and etanercept among rheumatoid arthritis patients in Saudi Arabia: a single-center study

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to examine the direct medical cost and impact of tocilizumab (TOZ) versus adalimumab (ADM) and etanercept (ETC) on reducing the levels of two inflammatory markers (e.g., C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using real-world data from Saudi Arabia.

METHOD

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study in which data for biologic-naïve RA patients aged ≥ 18 years and treated with TOZ, ADM, ETC were retrieved from the electronic medical records (EMRs) of a university-affiliated tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Patients were followed up at least one year after the treatment initiation. Bottom-up microcosting was utilized to estimate the direct medical costs. Additionally, inverse probability treatment weighting and bootstrapping with 10,000 replications were conducted to generate 95% confidence levels for costs and the mean reductions in CRP and ESR levels.

RESULTS

The number of patients who met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis was 150 patients (TOZ (n = 56), ADM (n = 41), ETC (n = 53)). Patients on TOZ had 3.96 mg/L (95% CI: -0.229-4.95) and 11.21 mm/hr (95% CI: 10.28-18.11) higher mean reductions in the CRP and ESR levels compared to their counterparts on ADM, ETC, respectively. However, this was associated with mean annual incremental costs of USD 10,087.88 (95% CI: 9494.50-11,441.63) in all cost-effectiveness bootstrap distributions.

CONCLUSION

Tocilizumab has shown better effectiveness in reducing the levels of CRP and ESR but with higher costs. Future studies should examine whether the reduction of these two inflammatory markers is associated with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gains.

Socioeconomic impact of treatment with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

We evaluate the socioeconomic impact of treatment with biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We analysed data retrospectively from the prospective observational CorEvitas RA Japan Registry (March 2016-February 2020). Patients were categorised into paid workers (PWs) and home workers (HWs) and further based on drug classes. We assessed medication persistence, treatment outcomes, health care resource utilisation, and socioeconomic impact over 12 months, including direct (drugs and health care resource utilisation) and indirect (loss of productivity) costs.

RESULTS

Overall, 187 PWs and 114 HWs were identified. Over 12 months, medication persistence was high, treatment outcomes improved, and outpatient visits reduced in both groups. Following treatment initiation, direct costs increased, whereas indirect (loss of productivity) costs decreased in both groups. The unadjusted socioeconomic impact [Japanese yen (JPY)] increased across all drug classes in PWs (range: 29,700-151,700) and HWs (range: -28,700 to 83,000). Adjusted change in monthly socioeconomic impact was JPY 29,700-138,900 for PWs and JPY -28,000 to 92,800 for HWs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the socioeconomic burden increased across patient groups and drug classes. The decrease in indirect (loss of productivity) costs partially offset the increase in direct costs.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cost-utility evidence of TNF-a-i treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to estimate the pooled incremental net benefit (INBp).

METHODS

We selected economic evaluation studies reporting the cost-utility of TNF-a-i compared to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) after a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers' cost-effective analysis registry. The results were reported as pooled INB in purchasing power parity-adjusted US dollars, along with 95% confidence intervals. We used GRADE quality assessment to present summaries of evidence and random-effects meta-analysis to synthesize cost-utility of TNF-a-i.

RESULTS

We included 86 studies for systematic review, of which 27 for meta-analysis. TNF-a-i is not cost-effective [$ -4,129(-6,789 to -1,469)] compared to other DMARDs but with high heterogeneity. There was no evidence of publication bias (p = 0.447). On separate analysis, TNF-a-i is not cost-effective [$ -4,805(-7,882 to -1,728)] compared to conventional synthetic DMARDs for RA treatment. GRADE assessment indicated very low confidence in pooled cost-utility results and likely presence of risk of bias on the overall ECOBIAS checklist in studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence during the study period, TNF-a-i is not a cost-effective option for treating RA compared to other DMARDs. However, high heterogeneity and low confidence in GRADE quality assessment preclude the results from being generalizable.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Three approaches with a cohort simulation and real-world data

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We conducted three analyses: a lifetime analysis with a cohort model (Study A) and two short-term analyses (Studies B and C). Study A evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from costs of standard treatments. Study B evaluated yearly costs per person achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70), and Study C evaluated costs per person achieving previously defined claims-based effectiveness (equivalent to 28-joint Disease Activity Score ≤ 3.2). The proportion of ACR responders to the drugs of interest were determined by mixed treatment comparisons. Studies B and C estimated costs using a claims database.

RESULTS

In Study A, ICERs of all b/tsDMARDs were lower than 5.0 million Japanese yen (JPY) per QALY. In Study B, yearly costs per person with ACR50 response were lower for subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC; 1.9 million JPY) and SC abatacept (2.3 million JPY). In Study C, costs per person were lower for TCZ-SC (1.3 million JPY) and intravenous TCZ (1.6 million JPY) and effectiveness rates were higher for intravenous TCZ (45.3%) and infliximab (43.0%).

CONCLUSION

The b/tsDMARDs with lower prices showed higher cost-effectiveness.

Cost-consequence of abatacept as first-line therapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients using IORRA real-world data

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) as first-line (1L) therapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using data from the Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis database.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the cost per American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% improvement (ACR50) responder and per patient in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission from a Japanese healthcare payers' perspective over a 2-year time horizon. Clinical characteristics of patients on ABA-1L were matched with those of patients on ABA second or later line (2L+) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-1L directly or using propensity scores. Resource utilisation and medical costs were calculated from the Japan Medical Data Center claims database. Parameter uncertainty was addressed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses (age, treatment duration, Japanese version of Health Assessment Questionnaire [J-HAQ] score).

RESULTS

Incremental costs per member per month (ΔPMPM) for ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L and ABA-2L+ were -1,571 Japanese Yen (JPY) and 81 JPY, respectively. For ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L, ΔPMPM by ACR50 response was -11,715 JPY and by CDAI and SDAI remission 11,602 JPY and 47,003 JPY, respectively. Corresponding costs for ABA-1L were lower for all outcome parameters versus those for ABA-2L+. Scenario analyses showed that ABA-1L was cost-effective over TNFi-1L in patients <65 years for any outcome. Furthermore, ABA-1L was cost-effective over ABA-2L+ for all outcomes in patients with age <65 years, disease duration <5 years and J-HAQ ≥1.5.

CONCLUSIONS

ABA-1L demonstrated a favourable cost-effectiveness profile in RA patients, accruing savings for the Japanese healthcare payers.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update

BACKGROUND

Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document.

RESULTS

The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Systematic Literature Review of the Use of Productivity Losses/Gains in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Immune-Mediated Disorders

INTRODUCTION

In light of the lack of an agreed international standard for how to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), including cost-utility analyses (CUAs) from a societal perspective, there is uncertainty regarding to what extent the inclusion of productivity losses/gains in economic evaluations can affect cost-effectiveness results and subsequently decisions on whether to recommend new health technologies. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic review of CEAs and CUAs of drug-based therapies for a set of chronic immune-mediated disorders to understand how cost elements and calculation methods related to productivity losses/gains are used, examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of including productivity costs, and explore factors that affect the inclusion of productivity loss.

METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE^® In-process, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2010 to October 2020 by two independent reviewers for all CEAs and CUAs in adults with any of the following conditions: ankylosing spondylitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and ulcerative colitis. Relevant study data were extracted and evidence was synthesized for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Productivity cost elements including absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment/early retirement, premature mortality and informal care were extracted, along with the method used to determine them. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the inclusion of productivity loss.

RESULTS

Our searches identified 5016 records, culminating in 198 unique studies from 234 publications following screening. Most of the studies investigated rheumatoid arthritis (37.0%) or psoriasis (32.0%). The majority were CUAs, with some including both a CEA and a CUA (73.0%). Most studies used a payer perspective only (28.5%) or a societal perspective only (21.0%). Of the 49 studies incorporating productivity losses/gains, 42 reported the type of cost element used; all of these used patient absenteeism, either alone or in addition with other elements. Only 16 studies reported the method used to value productivity changes, of which eight used a human capital approach, four used a friction cost approach and four used both approaches. Twenty-eight of the 49 studies (57.1%) reported inclusion of productivity losses/gains as contributing to more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes and ICERs, while 12 (24.5%) reported no substantial impact. On the basis of a multivariate analysis, rheumatoid arthritis as the target disease had a statistically significant association with the inclusion of productivity loss compared with psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that incorporating productivity cost elements may positively affect cost-effectiveness outcomes in evaluations of therapeutics for immune-mediated disorders. Our work highlights the continued need for clarity when reporting how CEAs and CUAs in this disease area are conducted, in order to better inform healthcare decision-making.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran.

Methods

This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data.

Results

The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective.

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Biological Treatment Sequences for Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Previously Treated with Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review (SLR) had two objectives: to analyse published economic evaluations of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously treated with DMARDs and to assess the quality of those that included sequences of treatments.

METHODS

We performed an SLR on PubMed, Central, Cochrane, and French databases from January 2000 to December 2018. The search focused on cost-effectiveness/utility/benefit analyses. We extracted data on treatment sequences, outcomes (e.g. quality-adjusted life year) and choices of economic evaluation methods (e.g. model type, type of analysis, and method of utility estimation). We analysed the improvement of methods by comparing two sub-periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2018). The quality of reporting and the quality of the methods were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and a set of eight key aspects for a reference case for economic evaluation of bDMARDs based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) and Drummond checklists. Data extraction and study assessment were performed independently by two health economists.

RESULTS

From the 824 records identified in the initial search, 51 publications were selected. Of these, 31 included sequences. Individual models such as discrete-event simulations were used in over two-fifths (22/51, 43%) of the selected studies. Few studies (7/51, 14%) used utility scores based on generic instruments (e.g. EQ-5D). Estimation of hospitalization costs was described in only approximately one-third of studies (19/51). Loss of quality of life (QoL) related to adverse events such as tuberculosis and pneumonia was included in one-tenth (5/51, 10%) of the studies. It was difficult to compare the results of the economic evaluations (i.e. incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) due to the high heterogeneity of studies in terms of disease stage, data sources, inputs, and methods of health outcome assessment used. For identified studies including sequences, the CHEERS assessment of reporting quality showed insufficient reporting of uncertainty analyses and utility weights in more than a third of the studies (11/31, 35%; 9/25, 36%). An in-depth assessment of the quality of the studies revealed that only seven, mostly conducted during the sub-period 2010-2018, addressed the majority of methodological quality assessment issues such as the simulation of patient sequence pathways, the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of comparative effectiveness, the choice of treatment sequence, and rules for switching.

CONCLUSION

Our SLR identified a lack of high-quality evaluations assessing bDMARD sequences, although some improvements were made in the reporting and modelling of patients' pathways in studies published after 2010. In order to improve economic evaluations of RA, clear health technology assessment guidance on RA health-related QoL instruments must be provided, and data including long-term disease progression must be made available.

Qualitative Exploration of Triangulated, Shared Decision-Making in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Treat-to-target implementation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires a shared decision-making (SDM) process. However, ability to pay is a major determinant of patient choice, but how this factor affects SDM is under-explored.

METHODS

Visits at 4 RA clinics during which patients faced a decision to change their treatment were audiotaped between May 2016 and June 2017. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative framework analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 156 visits were analyzed. Most patients with RA, except those with effective insurance coverage, had deliberations disrupted or sidelined by third-party insurance providers having power to authorize the preferred disease-modifying antirheumatic drug choice. This triangulated SDM complicated efficiency in deliberations and timely treatment and was a barrier to shared engagement about health risks and symptom improvement typically found in patient-provider dyads.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatology care providers should aim to incorporate treatment costs and ability to pay into their deliberations so that individualized out-of-pocket estimates can be considered during triangulated SDM at the point-of-care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept plus methotrexate vs triple therapy in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of etanercept plus methotrexate (ETN+MTX) compared to triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

The 134 Chinese RA patients who were about to initiate ETN+MTX or triple DMARDs therapy based on treat-to-target strategy were consecutively recruited and categorized into ETN+MTX group (N = 49) or triple DMARDs group (N = 85). Treatment efficacy was assessed at month 3 (M3)/M6/M9/M12 after initiation of treatment. Also, 1-year treatment cost was evaluated, and cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

RA patients in ETN+MTX group exhibited similar disease activity and quality of life at each time point while elevated 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) change (M0-M12) and low disease activity rate compared with triple DMARDs group. For 1-year treatment cost, ETN+MTX required increased drug cost, decreased other medical cost, and finally elevated total cost compared with triple DMARDs. Meanwhile, compared to triple DMARDs, ETN+MTX produced an additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.015, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥2,939,506.7 per QALY that was 53.1 folds of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. More interestingly, sensitivity analysis revealed that the ETN price had to be reduced at least by 71.3% before ETN+MTX became cost-effectiveness compared to triple DMARDs.

CONCLUSION

ETN+MTX is less cost-effective in treating Chinese RA patients compared with triple DMARDs.

A novel etanercept biosimilar Anbainuo plus methotrexate exhibits increased cost-effectiveness compared to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in treating rheumatoid arthritis patients

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anbainuo (ABN) plus methotrexate (MTX) (ABN + MTX) versus conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.Forty-eight moderate to severe RA patients underwent ABN + MTX or cDMARDs treatment were consecutively enrolled and assigned to ABN + MTX group (n = 26) and control group (n = 22). Patients were followed up and their disease activity and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated at 3rd month, 6th month and 12th month after initiation of treatment. Treatment costs of 2 groups were calculated, then pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed.ABN + MTX increased drug cost and total cost while decreased indirect cost compared with cDMARDs after 12-month treatment. ABN + MTX group gained additional 0.22 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥104,293.6 per QALY after treatment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that rising ABN price by 20% produced an ICER of ¥130,403.6 per QALY, which was still lower than 3 times of the mean gross domestic product (GDP) per capita during the same period in China (¥165,960). Besides, ABN + MTX was more cost-effective in severe RA patients compared to moderate RA patients.ABN + MTX is cost-effective in treating moderate to severe RA patients compared with cDMARDs, although the total cost of ABN + MTX is relatively higher.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Modeled Health Economic Impact of a Hypothetical Certolizumab Pegol Risk-Sharing Scheme for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Finland

PURPOSE

To model the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) (with and without a hypothetical risk-sharing scheme at treatment initiation for biologic-naïve patients) versus the current mix of reimbursed biologics for treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Finland.

METHODS

A probabilistic model with 12-week cycles and a societal approach was developed for the years 2015-2019, accounting for differences in ACR responses (meta-analysis), mortality, and persistence. The risk-sharing scheme included a treatment switch and refund of the costs associated with CZP acquisition if patients failed to achieve ACR20 response at week 12. For the current treatment mix, ACR20 at week 24 determined treatment continuation. Quality-adjusted life years were derived on the basis of the Health Utilities Index.

RESULTS

In the Finnish target population, CZP treatment with a risk-sharing scheme led to a estimated annual net expenditure decrease ranging from 1.7% in 2015 to 5.6% in 2019 compared with the current treatment mix. Per patient over the 5 years, CZP risk sharing was estimated to decrease the time without ACR response by 5%-units, decrease work absenteeism by 24 days, and increase the time with ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses by 5%-, 6%-, and 1%-units, respectively, with a gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years. The modeled risk-sharing scheme showed reduced costs of €7866 per patient, with a more than 95% probability of cost-effectiveness when compared with the current treatment mix.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis estimated that CZP, with or without the risk-sharing scheme, is a cost-effective alternative treatment for RA patients in Finland. The surplus provided by the CZP risk-sharing scheme could fund treatment for 6% more Finnish RA patients.

FUNDING

UCB Pharma.

Modeling of the clinical and economic impact of a risk-sharing agreement supporting a treat-to-target strategy in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment.

METHODS

The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement).

RESULTS

The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.

Treatment Patterns, Direct Cost of Biologics, and Direct Medical Costs for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Real-world Analysis of Nationwide Japanese Claims Data

PURPOSE

The aims of this article were to characterize the patterns of treating rheumatoid arthritis with biologics and to evaluate costs using claims data from the Japan Medical Data Center Co, Ltd.

METHODS

Patients aged 16 to <75 years who were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and prescribed adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), infliximab (IFX), tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept, certolizumab, or golimumab between January 2005 and August 2014 were included. For the cross-sectional analysis, the annual costs of ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ from 2009 to 2013 were assessed. For the longitudinal analysis, patients prescribed these biologics as the first line of biologics, from January 2005 to August 2014, were included. The cost of biologic treatment over 1, 2, and 3 years (including prescription of subsequent biologics) and direct medical costs (including treatment of comorbidities) were compared between groups. Discontinuation and switching rates in each group were estimated, and multivariate analyses were conducted to estimate an adjusted hazard ratio of discontinuation and switching rates among each group. The dose of each first-line biologic treatment until discontinuation was analyzed to calculate relative dose intensity.

FINDINGS

The cross-sectional annual biologic costs of ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ were ~$8000 (2009 and 2013), $13,000 (2009) and $15,000 (2013), $10,000 (2009) and $11,000 (2013), and $9000 (2009) and $8000 (2013), respectively. In longitudinal analyses (n = 764), 276 (36%) initiated ETN; 242 (32%), IFX; 147 (19%), ADA; and 99 (13%), TCZ. The 1-year cumulative annual biologic costs per patient from the initial prescription of ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ as the first-line biologic treatment were ~$11,000, $19,000, $16,000, and $12,000. The corresponding direct medical costs over 1 year from the initial prescription were ~$17,000, $26,000, $22,000, and $22,000. Costs remained greatest in the IFX-initiation group at year 3. The discontinuation rates at 36 months with ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ were 37.7%, 52.3%, 55.8%, and 39.5%; the switching rates were 12.5%, 27.1%, 31.0%, and 16.7%. The mean (95% CI) relative dose intensities until discontinuation of ETN 25 mg, ETN 50 mg, IFX, ADA, and TCZ were 1.02 (0.95-1.10), 0.82 (0.79-0.85), 1.16 (1.12-1.20), 0.95 (0.90-0.99), and 0.96 (0.93-1.00).

IMPLICATIONS

Considered costs and discontinuation and switching event rates were lowest with ETN versus IFX, ADA, or TCZ used as the first-line biologic. Despite limitations, these findings imply clinical cost-reductive benefits of ETN as the first-line biologic treatment option for rheumatoid arthritis in Japan.

Efficacy of biological agents administered as monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Biological agents provide an important therapeutic alternative for rheumatoid arthritis patients refractory to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Few head-to-head comparative trials are available.

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of different biologic agents indicated for use as monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systemic literature search was performed on electronic databases to identify articles reporting double-blind randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of biologic agents indicated for monotherapy. Efficacy was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 criteria at 16-24 weeks. Relative efficacy was estimated using Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison models. Outcome measures were expressed as odds ratio and 95% credible intervals.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials were selected for data extraction and analysis. Mixed-treatment comparison analysis revealed that tocilizumab offered 100% probability of being the best treatment for inducing an ACR20 response versus placebo, methotrexate, adalimumab, or etanercept. Likewise, for ACR50 and ACR70 outcome responses, tocilizumab had a 99.8% or 98.7% probability of being the best treatment, respectively, compared to other treatments or placebo. Tocilizumab increased the relative probability of being the best treatment (vs methotrexate) by 3.2-fold (odds ratio: 2.1-3.89) for all ACR outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Tocilizumab offered the greatest possibility of obtaining an ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 outcome vs other monotherapies or placebo.

Cost-effectiveness of Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in South Korea

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, to the treatment of Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

METHODS

In this cost-utility analysis model, patients transitioned through treatment sequences based on Korean guidelines for RA patients with inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Lifetime health-related quality of life and costs were evaluated. Characteristics of the model cohort were based on those reported by the Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis phase 3 triaL (ORAL) Standard randomized Controlled trial of tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo. Efficacy was assessed using American College of Rheumatology response rates, converted to the changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores, based on tofacitinib clinical trials data. Published clinical trial data on discontinuation rates of the indicated drugs were incorporated in the model. The HAQ-DI scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); HAQ-DI-to-utility (EuroQoL 5D) mapping was based on data from 5 tofacitinib clinical trials. Costs were analyzed from a societal perspective, with values expressed in 2013 Korean won (KRW). Cost-effectiveness is presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

FINDINGS

First-line tofacitinib used before the standard of care (base-case analysis) increased both treatment costs and QALYs gained versus the standard-of-care treatment sequence, resulting in an ICER of KRW 13,228,910 per QALY. Tofacitinib also increased costs and QALYs gained when incorporated as a second-, third-, or fourth-line therapy. The inclusion of first-line tofacitinib increased the duration of active immunomodulatory therapy from 9.4 to 13.2 years. Tofacitinib-associated increases in costs were attributable to the increased lifetime drug costs. In sensitivity analyses, variations in input parameters and assumptions yielded ICERs in the range of KRW 6,995,719 per QALY to KRW 37,450,109 per QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

From a societal perspective, the inclusion of tofacitinib as a treatment strategy for moderate to severe RA is cost-effective; this conclusion was considered robust based on multiple sensitivity analyses. The study was limited by the lack of clinical data on follow-up therapy after tofacitinib administration and a lack of long-term data on discontinuation of drug use.

Cost-utility analysis of certolizumab pegol versus alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

BACKGROUND

Certolizumab pegol, a PEGylated tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor, improves the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when used in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy. This study evaluatedthe cost-utility of certolizumab pegol versusTNF-inhibitors plus methotrexate in the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov cohort health state transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility (costs and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of certolizumab pegol versus other TNF-inhibitors licensed in Spain in 2009. Efficacy was measured using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 6 months, based on adjusted indirect comparisons from published clinical trials. Utilities were derived from EQ-5D data from certolizumab pegol RA clinical trials. Clinical history and resource use data came from published literature. Unit costs were taken from Spanish databases or published data (cost year 2009). Base case analyses were conducted from the payer perspective, with a lifetime horizon, 3.5 % annual discounting rates for costs and outcomes, and 3 % inflation rate for 2009 onwards. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The average lifetime costs for certolizumab pegol, etanercept, adalimumab (every 2 weeks and weekly) and infliximab (3 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg) in combination with methotrexate were €140,971, €141,197, €139,148, €164,741, €136,961 and €152,561, respectively. The QALYs gained were 6.578, 6.462, 6.430 (for both adalimumab doses), 6.430, and 6.318 (for both infliximab doses), respectively. At a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate dominated adalimumab weekly, etanercept, and infliximab 5 mg/kg, and was cost-effective versus adalimumab every 2 weeks and infliximab 3 mg/kg (all with methotrexate), with estimated ICERs of €12,346/QALY and €15,414/QALY, respectively. Certolizumab pegol monotherapy was more cost-effective versus adalimumab, and less expensive with similar health gains versus etanercept (6.416 QALYs vs 6.492). Univariate analysis showed ICERs to be sensitive to changes in time horizon, ACR response time point, baseline Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, and rate of HAQ-disability index deterioration after discontinuing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that certolizumab pegol is cost-effective compared with other TNF-inhibitors recommended in Spain for the treatment of RA.

Key data elements for use in cost-utility modeling of biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluation is becoming more common and important as new biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are developed. While much has been published about how to design cost-utility models for RA to conduct these evaluations, less has been written about the sources of data populating those models. The goal is to review the literature and to provide recommendations for future data collection efforts.

METHODS

This study reviewed RA cost-utility models published between January 2006 and February 2014 focusing on five key sources of data (health-related quality-of-life and utility, clinical outcomes, disease progression, course of treatment, and healthcare resource use and costs). It provided recommendations for collecting the appropriate data during clinical and other studies to support modeling of biologic treatments for RA.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications met the selection criteria. Almost all used two steps to convert clinical outcomes data to utilities rather than more direct methods; most did not use clinical outcomes measures that captured absolute levels of disease activity and physical functioning; one-third of them, in contrast with clinical reality, assumed zero disease progression for biologic-treated patients; little more than half evaluated courses of treatment reflecting guideline-based or actual clinical care; and healthcare resource use and cost data were often incomplete.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, it is recommended that future studies collect clinical outcomes and health-related quality-of-life data using appropriate instruments that can convert directly to utilities; collect data on actual disease progression; be designed to capture real-world courses of treatment; and collect detailed data on a wide range of healthcare resources and costs.

The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

Background and Objectives

Economic evaluations provide information to aid the optimal utilization of limited healthcare resources. Costs of biologics for Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are remarkably high, which makes these agents an important target for economic evaluations. This systematic review aims to identify existing studies examining the cost-effectiveness of biologics for RA, assess their quality and report their results systematically.

Methods

A literature search covering Medline, Scopus, Cochrane library, ACP Journal club and Web of Science was performed in March 2013. The cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of one or more available biological drugs for the treatment of RA in adults were included. Two independent investigators systematically collected information and assessed the quality of the studies. To enable the comparison of the results, all costs were converted to 2013 euro.

Results

Of the 4890 references found in the literature search, 41 CUAs were included in the current systematic review. While considering only direct costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) ranged from 39,000 to 1 273,000 €/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained in comparison to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in cDMARD naïve patients. Among patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs, biologics were associated with ICERs ranging from 12,000 to 708,000 €/QALY. Rituximab was found to be the most cost-effective alternative compared to other biologics among the patients with an insufficient response to TNFi.

Conclusions

When 35,000 €/QALY is considered as a threshold for the ICER, TNFis do not seem to be cost-effective among cDMARD naïve patients and patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs. With thresholds of 50,000 to 100,000 €/QALY biologics might be cost-effective among patients with an inadequate response to cDMARDs. Standardization of multiattribute utility instruments and a validated standard conversion method for missing utility measures would enable better comparison between CUAs.

Cost-effectiveness of tocilizumab, a humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody, versus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using real-world data from the IORRA observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world setting in Japan.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness was determined using a Markov model-based probabilistic simulation. Data from RA patients registered in the Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) cohort study between April 2007 and April 2011 were extracted using a pair-matching method: tocilizumab group (n = 104), patients who used at least 1 disease-modifying anti- rheumatic drug and in whom tocilizumab treatment was initiated; methotrexate group (n = 104), patients in whom methotrexate treatment was initiated for the first time or after an interruption of 6 or more months. Assuming a 6-month cycle length, health benefits and costs were measured over a lifetime and discounted at an annual rate of 3%.

RESULTS

Compared with methotrexate treatment, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for tocilizumab treatment were approximately 1.5- and 1.3-times higher, respectively. Incremental cost per QALY gained with tocilizumab was $49,359, which was below the assumed cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The probability of tocilizumab being cost- effective was 62.2%.

CONCLUSION

The simulation model using real-world data from Japan showed that tocilizumab (at a certain price) may improve treatment cost-effectiveness in patients with moderate-to-severe RA by enhancing quality-adjusted life expectancy.

Primary-care-based episodes of care and their costs in a three-month follow-up in Finland

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient characteristics, resource use, and costs related to different episodes of care (EOC) in Finnish health care.

DESIGN

Data were collected during a three-month prospective, non-randomized follow-up study (Effective Health Centre) using questionnaires and an electronic health record.

SETTING

Three primary health care practices in Pirkanmaa, Finland.

SUBJECTS

Altogether 622 patients were recruited during a one-week period. Inclusion criteria: the patient had a doctor's or nurse's appointment on the recruiting day and agreed to participate. Exclusion criteria: patients visiting a specialized health guidance clinic for pregnant women, children, and mothers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient characteristics, resource use, and costs based on the ICPC-2 EOC classification.

RESULTS

On average, the patients had 1.22 EOCs during the three months. Patient characteristics and resource use differed between the EOC chapters. Chapter L, "Musculoskeletal", had the most episodes (17%). The most common (8%) single EOC was "upper respiratory infection". The mean cost of an episode (COE) was €389.56 (standard error 61.11) and the median COE was €165.00 (interquartile range €118.46-288.56) during the three-month follow-up. The most expensive chapter was K, "Circulatory", with a mean COE of €909.85. The most expensive single COE was in chapter K, €32 545.56. The most expensive 1% of the COEs summed up covered 36% of the total COEs.

CONCLUSION

Patient characteristics, resource use, and costs differed between the ICPC-2 chapters, which could be taken into account in service planning and pricing. Future studies should incorporate more specific diagnoses, larger data sets, and longer follow-up times. Key points The most common episodes were under the ICPC-2 "Musculoskeletal" chapter, but the highest mean and single-episode costs were related to the "Circulatory" chapter. The mean (median) cost of episodes that started in primary care was €390 (€165) during the three-month follow-up. Patient characteristics, resource use, and costs differed significantly between the ICPC-2 chapters. The most expensive 1% of the episodes covered 36% of the total costs of all the episodes.

Modeling rheumatoid arthritis using different techniques - a review of model construction and results

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease with severe effects on the functional ability of patients. Due to the prevalence of 0.5 to 1.0 percent in western countries, new treatment options are a major concern for decision makers with regard to their budget impact. In this context, cost-effectiveness analyses are a helpful tool to evaluate new treatment options for reimbursement schemes.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze and compare decision analytic modeling techniques and to explore their use in RA with regard to their advantages and shortcomings.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMED and 58 studies reporting health economics decision models were analyzed with regard to the modeling technique used.

RESULTS

From the 58 reviewed publications, we found 13 reporting decision tree-analysis, 25 (cohort) Markov models, 13 publications on individual sampling methods (ISM) and seven discrete event simulations (DES). Thereby 26 studies were identified as presenting independently developed models and 32 models as adoptions. The modeling techniques used were found to differ in their complexity and in the number of treatment options compared. Methodological features are presented in the article and a comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness estimates is given in Additional files 1 and 2.

DISCUSSION

When compared to the other modeling techniques, ISM and DES have advantages in the coverage of patient heterogeneity and, additionally, DES is capable to model more complex treatment sequences and competing risks in RA-patients. Nevertheless, the availability of sufficient data is necessary to avoid assumptions in ISM and DES exercises, thereby enabling biased results. Due to the different settings, time frames and interventions in the reviewed publications, no direct comparison of modeling techniques was applicable. The results from other indications suggest that incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) do not differ significantly between Markov and DES models, but DES is able to report more outcome parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Given a sufficient data supply, DES is the modeling technique of choice when modeling cost-effectiveness in RA. Otherwise transparency on the data inputs is crucial for valid results and to inform decision makers about possible biases. With regard to ICERs, Markov models might provide similar estimates as more advanced modeling techniques.

Intravenous tocilizumab: a review of its use in adults with rheumatoid arthritis

Tocilizumab (Actemra®, RoActemra®) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that acts as an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist. Intravenous tocilizumab as monotherapy or in combination with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to one or more DMARDs or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α antagonists (the specific indication varies between countries); it may also be used as monotherapy in patients for whom continued methotrexate use is inappropriate. This article reviews the efficacy and tolerability of tocilizumab in these patients and briefly summarizes its pharmacology. Several large well-designed clinical trials and routine clinical practice studies showed that tocilizumab was an effective and generally well tolerated biologic for the treatment of adults with RA, including those with an inadequate response to DMARDs or TNFα antagonists. In these studies, tocilizumab as monotherapy or in combination with DMARDs (including methotrexate) had beneficial effects on the signs and symptoms of disease, health-related quality of life/physical function, and/or radiologic disease progression. In addition, tocilizumab monotherapy was more effective than adalimumab monotherapy in improving the signs and symptoms of disease in patients for whom continued methotrexate use was inappropriate. As with other biologic DMARDS, infections were the most common adverse event associated with tocilizumab therapy. Pooled and meta-analyses demonstrated that the efficacy and tolerability profile of tocilizumab was sustained during long-term (up to 9 years) therapy. Although additional comparative data are needed to position tocilizumab more definitively with respect to other biologic DMARDs, current evidence indicates that tocilizumab is effective as a first- or subsequent-line biologic in patients with moderate to severe RA.

How to select the right cost-effectiveness model? : A systematic review and stepwise approach for selecting a transferable health economic evaluation model for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

In the current study, we propose an approach for selection of a model that is transferable to a specific decision-making context (in this case, the Netherlands), using the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objectives of this study were (a) to perform a systematic literature review to identify existing health economic evaluation models for economic evaluation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA; and (b) to test the appropriateness of a stepwise model-selection process.

METHODS

First, we searched Medline and Embase to identify relevant studies in the English language, published between 1 January 2002 and 31 August 2012. From the included studies, all unique models were identified. Second, we applied a multi-step approach to model selection. Models that did not meet all minimal methodological and structural requirements based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria were excluded. Next, models were assessed on the basis of their fit when transferred to the Dutch health care setting. The criteria for model fit were transferability factors, as published by Welte et al., after exclusion of those that were deemed transferable by simple adaptation. Finally, the remaining models underwent a general quality check using the Philips checklist. Models showing good fit and high quality were considered to be transferable to the Dutch health care setting, using simple adaptation.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search identified 498 articles, which included 33 unique health economic evaluation models. Only six models passed the minimal methodological and structural requirements. Two of these models had an imperfect transferability fit to the Dutch health care setting, according to the Welte method. The remaining four models were, according to the Philips method, of good quality and were expected to be transferable by a simple adaptation.

CONCLUSION

This study introduces a stepwise approach for selecting health economic evaluation models that are transferable by a simple adaptation. The approach seems feasible and can be applied in various therapeutic areas, provided that the minimal methodological and structural requirements are defined accordingly. Availability of health economic evaluation models coupled with structured model selection could improve the efficiency, quality and comparability of health economic research.

Monoclonal antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis: comparative effectiveness of tocilizumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by persistent joint inflammation, systemic inflammation, and immunological abnormalities. Because cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-6 play a major role in the development of RA, their targeting could constitute a reasonable novel therapeutic strategy for treating RA. Indeed, worldwide clinical trials of TNF inhibiting biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) including infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, and etanercept as well as the humanized anti-human IL-6 receptor antibody, tocilizumab, have demonstrated outstanding clinical efficacy and tolerable safety profiles, resulting in worldwide approval for using these bDMARDs to treat moderate to severe active RA in patients with an inadequate response to synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs). Although bDMARDs have elicited to a paradigm shift in the treatment of RA due to the prominent efficacy that had not been previously achieved by sDMARDs, a substantial percentage of patients failed primary or secondary responses to bDMARD therapy. Because RA is a heterogeneous disease in which TNF-α and IL-6 play overlapping but distinct pathological roles, further studies are required to determine the best use of TNF inhibitors and tocilizumab in individual RA patients.

Current immunotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common autoimmune disease primarily manifesting as chronic synovitis, subsequently leading to a change in joint integrity. Progressive disability and systemic complications are strongly associated with a decreased quality of life. To maintain function and health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, early, aggressive and guided immunosuppressive therapy is required to induce clinical remission. Antirheumatic drugs are capable of controlling synovial inflammation and are therefore named 'disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs' (DMARDs). This article aims to bridge the beginning of DMARD therapy with agents such as methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, injectable gold and (hydroxy)chloroquine with biological therapies, and with the new era of kinase inhibitors. Mechanisms of action, as well as advantages and disadvantages of DMARDs, are discussed with respect to the current literature and current recommendations.

Administration costs of intravenous biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Cost-effectiveness studies explicitly reporting infusion times, drug-specific administration costs for infusions or real-payer intravenous drug cost are few in number. Yet, administration costs for infusions are needed in the health economic evaluations assessing intravenously-administered drugs.

Objectives

To estimate the drug-specific administration and total cost of biologic intravenous rheumatoid arthritis (RA) drugs in the adult population and to compare the obtained costs with published cost estimates.

Methods

Cost price data for the infusions and drugs were systematically collected from the 2011 Finnish price lists. All Finnish hospitals with available price lists were included. Drug administration and total costs (administration cost + drug price) per infusion were analysed separately from the public health care payer’s perspective. Further adjustments for drug brand, dose, and hospital type were done using regression methods in order to improve the comparability between drugs. Annual expected drug administration and total costs were estimated. A literature search not limited to RA was performed to obtain the per infusion administration cost estimates used in publications. The published costs were converted to Finnish values using base-year purchasing power parities and indexing to the year 2011.

Results

Information from 19 (95%) health districts was obtained (107 analysable prices out of 176 observations). The average drug administration cost for infliximab, rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab infusion in RA were €355.91; €561.21; €334.00; and €293.96, respectively. The regression-adjusted (dose, hospital type; using semi-log ordinary least squares) mean administration costs for infliximab and rituximab infusions in RA were €289.12 (95% CI €222.61–375.48) and €542.28 (95% CI €307.23–957.09). The respective expected annual drug administration costs were €2312.96 for infliximab during the first year, €1879.28 for infliximab during the forthcoming years, and €1843.75 for rituximab. The obtained average administration costs per infusion were higher (1.8–3.3 times depending on the drug) than the previously published purchasing power adjusted and indexed average administration costs for infusions in RA.

Conclusions

The administration costs of RA infusions vary between drugs, and more effort should be made to find realistic drug-specific estimates for cost-effectiveness evaluations. The frequent assumption of intravenous drug administration costs equalling outpatient visit cost can underestimate the costs.

Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database

Systematic literature searches were conducted to identify studies that conducted statistical mapping to predict EQ-5D utilities or responses from any source instrument and reported the estimated algorithms in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to use them to predict EQ-5D in other studies. Ninety studies reporting 121 mapping algorithms met the inclusion criteria. The studies estimated EQ-5D utilities from 80 source instruments. All but two studies included direct utility mapping to predict EQ-5D utilities, while 20 studies (22%) conducted response mapping to predict responses to each EQ-5D domain. Seventy-two studies (80%) explored ordinary least squares regression and 16 (18%) used censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) models. The details of the studies identified are made available in an online database, which will be updated regularly to enable researchers to easily identify studies that can help them to estimate utilities for economic evaluation.

Consensus statement on blocking the effects of interleukin-6 and in particular by interleukin-6 receptor inhibition in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions

BACKGROUND

Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion.

METHODS

Preparation of this document involved international experts in RA treatment and RA patients. A systematic literature search was performed that focused on TCZ and other IL6-pathway inhibitors in RA and other diseases. Subsequently, incorporating available published evidence and expert opinion, the steering committee and a broader expert committee (both including RA patients) formulated the current consensus statement.

RESULTS

The consensus statement covers use of TCZ as combination- or monotherapy in various RA populations and includes clinical, functional and structural aspects. The statement also addresses the second approved indication in Europe JIA and non-approved indications. Also early phase trials involving additional agents that target the IL-6 receptor or IL-6 were evaluated. Safety concerns, including haematological, hepatic and metabolic issues as well as infections, are addressed likewise.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety. The document is aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.

The issue of comparators in economic evaluations of biologic response modifiers in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, a number of biologic response modifiers (BRMs) have emerged and transformed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Due to their relatively high costs, economic evaluations have attempted to determine their place in the RA treatment armamentarium. This article reviews three key areas where changes to the treatment paradigm challenges findings of existing economic evaluations.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of economic evaluations examining BRMs approved for use in North America for RA. Only economic evaluations that examined relevant direct costs and health outcomes were included. Data were extracted and summarised, then stratified by patient population and comparators. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared across studies.

RESULTS

It appears that tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors are less cost effective compared to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for first-line treatment. In addition, it appears that treatment with a TNF alpha inhibitor in patients who were refractory to previous DMARD therapies is more cost effective, compared to switching to another DMARD. Finally, after an inadequate response to a TNF alpha inhibitor, it appears that therapy with rituximab is more cost effective than treatment with another TNF alpha inhibitor or abatacept.

DISCUSSION

It is important to acknowledge that cost effectiveness depends on which comparators are included in the analyses and the evidence for the comparators. The most typical comparator in the studies was traditional DMARDs, mainly methotrexate. However, as more BRMs come into the market and new clinical evidences emerge on the comparative effectiveness of BRMs, new economic evaluations will need to incorporate this information such that reimbursement decisions can be fully informed regarding relative value.