Healthcare-Related Costs Associated with Switching Subcutaneous Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitor in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis: a Retrospective Study

Introduction

Subsequent lines of subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (SC-TNFi) treatment may be well motivated in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)—collectively named inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, the costs associated with switching SC-TNFis are largely unknown. The objective of this retrospective observational study was to explore costs of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with switching SC-TNFi treatment among biologic-naïve Swedish patients with IA.

Methods

Using population-based register data, adult patients filling prescriptions between May 6, 2010 and December 31, 2014 for an SC-TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and golimumab) were included. Patients switching treatment (cyclers) were matched to treatment persistent patients on the basis of propensity score and follow-up time. HCRU-associated costs were captured and compared 12 months before and 12 months after the index date (defined as the date of the switch).

Results

A balanced cohort of 594 matched pairs was derived. Prior to the index date, cyclers had significantly higher non-treatment HCRU costs compared to persistent patients ($3815 [3498–4147] vs. $2900; 95%CI [2565–3256]). However, 12 months after the index date, cyclers had significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs while persistent patients lowered theirs ($822 [232–1490] vs. $− 313 [− 664–36]). This resulted in a statistically significant difference in difference of $1135 between the groups.

Conclusions

In biologic-naïve patients treated with SC-TNFi for IA, cyclers significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs 12 months after switching treatment while persistent patients lowered their costs during the same time period. As these findings indicate that differences in treatment persistence may have an impact on costs, further research utilizing more comprehensive data sources in alternate settings is warranted.

The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

AIMS

To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010-2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

RESULTS

Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p < .001; RA-related: $3,364 vs $2,297, p < .001). Monthly RA-related costs were higher for patients switching to a third tDMARD compared to non-switchers remaining on their second tDMARD ($3,835 vs $3,383, p < .001). Switchers to abatacept had significantly lower RA-related monthly costs vs switchers to TNFi ($3,129 vs $3,436, p = .021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p = 0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p = .031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p = .093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p < .001) compared to switchers to abatacept.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.

Costs associated with failure to respond to treatment among patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNFi therapy: a retrospective claims analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are common second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was designed to compare the real-world clinical and economic outcomes between patients with RA who responded to TNFi therapy and those who did not.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort analysis we used medical and pharmacy claims from members of 14 large U.S. commercial health plans represented in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with RA and initiating TNFi therapy (index date) between 1 January 2007 and 30 April 2014 were included in the study. Treatment response was assessed using a previously developed and validated claims-based algorithm. Patients classified as treatment responders in the 12 months postindex were matched 1:1 to nonresponders on important baseline characteristics, including sex, age, index TNFi agent, and comorbidities. The matched cohorts were then compared on their all-cause and RA-related healthcare resource use, and costs were assessed from a payer perspective during the first, second, and third years postindex using parametric tests, regressions, and a nonparametric bootstrap.

RESULTS

A total of 7797 patients met the study inclusion criteria, among whom 2337 (30%) were classified as treatment responders. The responders had significantly lower all-cause hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and physical/occupational therapy visits than matched nonresponders during the first-year postindex. Mean total all-cause medical costs were $5737 higher for matched nonresponders, largely driven by outpatient visits and hospitalizations. Mean all-cause pharmacy costs (excluding costs of biologics) were $354 higher for matched nonresponders. Mean RA-related pharmacy costs (conventional synthetic and biologic drugs), however, were $8579 higher in the responder cohort, driven by higher adherence to their index TNFi agent (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). A similar pattern of cost differentiation was observed over years 2 and 3 of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study we found that, compared with matched nonresponders, patients who responded to TNFi treatments had lower all-cause medical, pharmacy, and total costs (excluding biologics) up to 3 years from initiation of TNFi therapy. These cost differences between the two cohorts provide a considerable offset to the cost of RA medications and should encourage close monitoring of treatment response to minimize disease progression with appropriate therapy choices.

A microcosting study of immunogenicity and tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor drug level tests for therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To identify and quantify resource required and associated costs for implementing TNF-α inhibitor (TNFi) drug level and anti-drug antibody (ADAb) tests in UK rheumatology practice.

METHODS

A microcosting study, assuming the UK National Health Service perspective, identified the direct medical costs associated with providing TNFi drug level and ADAb testing in clinical practice. Resource use and costs per patient were identified via four stages: identification of a patient pathway with resource implications; estimation of the resources required; identification of the cost per unit of resource (2015 prices); and calculation of the total costs per patient. Univariate and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed using the variation in resource use and unit costs.

RESULTS

Total costs for TNFi drug level and concurrent ADAb testing, assessed using ELISAs on trough serum levels, were £152.52/patient (range: £147.68-159.24) if 40 patient samples were tested simultaneously. For the base-case analysis, the pre-testing phase incurred the highest costs, which included booking an additional appointment to acquire trough blood samples. The additional appointment was the key driver of costs per patient (67% of the total cost), and labour accounted for 10% and consumables 23% of the total costs. Performing ELISAs once per patient (rather than in duplicate) reduced the total costs to £133.78/patient.

CONCLUSION

This microcosting study is the first assessing the cost of TNFi drug level and ADAb testing. The results could be used in subsequent cost-effectiveness analyses of TNFi pharmacological tests to target treatments and inform future policy recommendations.

Clinical Outcomes and Biologic Costs of Switching Between Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in US Veterans with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and drug/administration costs of treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating TNFi therapy. The analysis compared patients initiating and continuing a single TNFi with patients who subsequently switched to a different TNFi.

Methods

Data from patients enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry who initiated treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab from 2003 to 2010 were analyzed. Outcomes included duration of therapy, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28), and direct drug and drug administration costs.

Results

Of 563 eligible patients, 262 initiated a single TNFi therapy, 142 restarted their initial TNFi after a ≥90-day gap in treatment (interrupted therapy), and 159 switched to a different TNFi. Patients who switched had higher mean DAS28 before starting TNFi therapy than patients with single or interrupted therapy: 5.3 vs 4.5 or 4.6, respectively. Mean duration of the first course was 34.3 months for single therapy, 18.3 months for interrupted therapy, and 17.7 months for switched therapy. Mean post-treatment DAS28 was highest for patients who switched TNFi. Mean annualized costs for first course were $13,800 for single therapy, $13,200 for interrupted therapy, and $14,200 for switched therapy; mean annualized costs for second course were $12,800 for interrupted therapy and $15,100 for switched therapy.

Conclusion

Patients who switched TNFi had higher pre-treatment DAS28 and higher overall costs than patients who received the same TNFi as either single or interrupted therapy.

Funding

This research was funded by Immunex Corp., a fully owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc., and by VA HSR&D Grant SHP 08-172.

Evolution of Costs of Inflammatory Bowel Disease over Two Years of Follow-Up

Background

With the increasing use of anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a shift of costs has been observed with medication costs replacing hospitalization and surgery as major cost driver. We aimed to explore the evolution of IBD-related costs over two years of follow-up.

Methods and Findings

In total 1,307 Crohn's disease (CD) patients and 915 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients were prospectively followed for two years by three-monthly web-based questionnaires. Changes of healthcare costs, productivity costs and out-of-pocket costs over time were assessed using mixed model analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify costs drivers. In total 737 CD patients and 566 UC were included. Total costs were stable over two years of follow-up, with annual total costs of €7,835 in CD and €3,600 in UC. However, within healthcare costs, the proportion of anti-TNF therapy-related costs increased from 64% to 72% in CD (p<0.01) and from 31% to 39% in UC (p < 0.01). In contrast, the proportion of hospitalization costs decreased from 19% to 13% in CD (p<0.01), and 22% to 15% in UC (p < 0.01). Penetrating disease course predicted an increase of healthcare costs (adjusted odds ratio (adj. OR) 1.95 (95% CI 1.02–3.37) in CD and age <40 years in UC (adj. OR 4.72 (95% CI 1.61–13.86)).

Conclusions

BD-related costs remained stable over two years. However, the proportion of anti-TNF-related healthcare costs increased, while hospitalization costs decreased. Factors associated with increased costs were penetrating disease course in CD and age <40 in UC.

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from GEMINI 1, a Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of the induction and maintenance of clinical response and remission by vedolizumab (MLN0002) in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC with an inadequate response to, loss of response to or intolerance of conventional therapy or anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α. The clinical evidence showed that vedolizumab performed significantly better than placebo in both the induction and maintenance phases. In the post hoc subgroup analyses in patients with or without prior anti-TNF-α therapy, vedolizumab performed better then placebo (p value not reported). In addition, a greater improvement in health-related quality of life was observed in patients treated with vedolizumab, and the frequency and types of adverse events were similar in the vedolizumab and placebo groups, but the evidence was limited to short-term follow-up. There were a number of limitations and uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, which warrants caution in its interpretation--in particular, the post hoc subgroup analyses and high dropout rates in the maintenance phase of GEMINI 1. The company also presented a network meta-analysis of vedolizumab versus other biologic therapies indicated for moderate-to-severe UC. However, the ERG considered that the results presented may have underestimated the uncertainty in treatment effects, since fixed-effects models were used, despite clear evidence of heterogeneity among the trials included in the network. Results from the company's economic evaluation (which included price reductions to reflect the proposed patient access scheme for vedolizumab) suggested that vedolizumab is the most effective option compared with surgery and conventional therapy in the following three populations: (1) a mixed intention-to-treat population, including patients who have previously received anti-TNF-α therapy and those who are anti-TNF-α naïve; (2) patients who are anti-TNF-α naïve only; and (3) patients who have previously failed anti-TNF-α therapy only. The ERG concluded that the results of the company's economic evaluation could not be considered robust, because of errors in model implementation, omission of relevant comparators, deviations from the NICE reference case and questionable model assumptions. The ERG amended the company's model and demonstrated that vedolizumab is expected to be dominated by surgery in all three populations.

National and regional dose escalation and cost of tumor necrosis factor blocker therapy in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients in US health plans

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the proportion and magnitude of dose escalation nationally and regionally among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with TNF-blockers and estimated the costs of TNF-blocker therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used claims data from US commercially-insured adult RA patients who initiated adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab therapy between 2005-2009. Biologic-naïve patients enrolled in the health plan for ≥6 months before and ≥12 months after therapy initiation were followed for 12 months. Dose escalation was assessed using three methods: (1) average weekly dose > recommended label dose, (2) average ending dispensed dose > maintenance dose, and (3) average dose after maintenance dose > maintenance dose. Annual cost of therapy included costs for mean dose and drug administration fees.

RESULTS

Overall, 1420 etanercept, 874 adalimumab, and 454 infliximab patients were included. A significantly lower proportion of etanercept-treated patients had dose escalation using the average weekly dose (3.9% vs 21.4% adalimumab and 69.6% infliximab; p < 0.0001), average ending dispensed dose (1.1% vs 10.6% adalimumab and 63.0% infliximab; p < 0.0001), and average dose after maintenance dose methods (2.8% vs 15.7% adalimumab and 69.6% infliximab; p < 0.0001). Regional dose escalation rates and magnitudes of escalation were directionally consistent with national rates. Etanercept had the lowest cost per treated RA patient ($19,690) compared to adalimumab ($23,020) and infliximab ($24,030).

LIMITATIONS

Exclusion of patients not on continuous TNF-blocker therapy limits the generalizability; however, ∼50% of patients were persistent on therapy for 12 months. The study population comprised RA patients in commercial health plans, thus the results may not be generalizable to Medicare or uninsured populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, etanercept patients had the lowest proportions and magnitudes of dose escalation across all methods compared to adalimumab and infliximab patients nationally and regionally. Mean annual cost was lowest for etanercept-treated patients.

Cost effectiveness of golimumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Golimumab is a novel TNF-α inhibitor licensed to treat patients with active PsA. Although its clinical efficacy has been proven in clinical trials, its cost effectiveness is yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost effectiveness of golimumab among patients with active PsA from the UK NHS perspective.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was used to simulate progression of a hypothetical cohort of active PsA patients on golimumab and other TNF-α inhibitors as well as palliative care. The clinical evidence was derived from clinical trials of TNF-α inhibitors and compared using mixed treatment models. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) estimated based on change in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) from baseline. The annual acquisition cost of golimumab was assumed to be identical to annual cost of other subcutaneous TNF-α inhibitors. The resource use costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% over a period of 40 years. The uncertainty surrounding important variables was further explored using probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

TNF-α inhibitors were significantly superior to palliative care but comparable to each other on Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC), HAQ and PASI response. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICERs) for golimumab compared to palliative care was £16,811 for PsA patients and £16,245 for a subgroup of PsA patients with significant psoriasis. At an acceptability threshold of £30,000 per QALY, the probability of golimumab being cost effective is 89%.

CONCLUSION

Once monthly, golimumab is a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with active PsA. With its patient-focussed attributes, golimumab is likely to offer additional choice in PsA treatment.

Annual costs of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors using real-world data in a commercially insured population in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To calculate annual cost per treated patient of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab for common approved indications, based on actual TNF-inhibitor use in clinical practice.

METHODS

Adults with ≥1 claim for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab between January 2005 and March 2009 were identified from the IMS LifeLink™ Health Plan Claims Database. Patients new to therapy or continuing therapy (i.e., a prior claim for a TNF-inhibitor) were analyzed separately. Included patients had been enrolled from 180 days before the first TNF-inhibitor claim (index date) through 360 days after the index date and had a diagnosis during the pre-index period for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. Patients with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or juvenile idiopathic arthritis were excluded. Annual costs were calculated using wholesale acquisition costs for the TNF-inhibitor and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for drug administration. Costs from restarting or switching TNF-inhibitor therapy during the first year were included.

RESULTS

A total of 27,704 patients (11,528 new, 16,176 continuing) had claims for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, most commonly (65%) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The most commonly used agent was etanercept (14,777 patients; 53%), followed by adalimumab (6862 patients; 25%) and infliximab (6065 patients; 22%). Annual cost per treated patient was etanercept $14,873, adalimumab $17,766, and infliximab $21,256 across all indications. Annual cost per treated patient by disease was (etanercept/adalimumab/infliximab): rheumatoid arthritis ($14,314/$17,700/$20,390), psoriasis ($17,182/$17,682/$23,935), psoriatic arthritis ($15,030/$18,483/$24,974), and ankylosing spondylitis ($14,254/$16,925/$23,056). New and continuing patients showed similar results, with etanercept having the lowest costs.

LIMITATIONS

This analysis is limited to three TNF-inhibitors and a US managed-care population.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this analysis of real-world use of TNF-inhibitors among patients in nationwide clinical practice settings, the annual TNF-inhibitor cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept across all indications.

Regional review of patients with psoriatic arthritis in secondary care in the West Midlands: prevalence, disease activity and eligibility for anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy

OBJECTIVES

Tumour necrosis factor alpha-blockers (TNF-alpha) are licensed for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and their use has been approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for use in the United Kingdom under a set of defined clinical criteria.

METHODS

In this out-patient study we evaluated PsA in rheumatology secondary care clinics in units across the West Midlands over a 2-week period, assessing prevalence, disease activity and eligibility for anti TNF-alpha treatment as defined by the NICE criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 1718 forms returned from the 2000 sent (86% response rate), 175 patients had PsA (10.2%). Of those, 22 (12.6%) were already on anti TNF-alpha treatment. 12 patients were noted to have purely axial disease and as per the NICE guidelines should not be assessed under the PsA criteria. A further 5 patients fulfilled the criteria for treatment with anti TNF-alpha with no contraindications. In the region 22 out of 27 patients (81%) with active disease were correctly on Anti TNF therapy. In total 27 (15.4%) patients with PsA met the NICE criteria for treatment of PsA with anti TNF-alpha therapy. 3 patients had previously failed anti TNF-alpha treatment. No patient fulfilling criteria for treatment were found to have any contraindications to treatment.

CONCLUSION

We note the relatively high proportion of PsA patients eligible for treatment with anti TNF-alpha blockers in the region (15.4%) compared to the NICE estimate (2.4%). This may be in part explained by a selection bias. However, the results may have significant implications for healthcare provision given the relatively high cost of anti-TNF-alpha agents. We comment on the limitations of such criteria and the effective use of regional collaboration for both training and audit purposes.

Association of prescription abandonment with cost share for high-cost specialty pharmacy medications

BACKGROUND

In 2008, specialty medications accounted for 15.1% of total pharmacy benefit medication spending, and per member expenditures have increased by 11.1% annually from 2004 to 2008 within a commercially insured population of 8 million members. Insurers face increasing pressure to control specialty medication expenditures and to rely on increasing member cost share through creation of a fourth copayment tier within the incentive-based formulary pharmacy benefit system. Data are needed on the influence that member out-of-pocket (OOP) expense may have on prescription abandonment (defined as the patient never actually taking possession of the medication despite evidence of a written prescription generated by a prescriber).

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between prescription abandonment and OOP expense among individuals newly initiating high-cost medication therapy with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker or multiple sclerosis (MS) biologic agent.

METHODS

This observational cross-sectional study queried a midwestern and southern U.S. database of 13,172,480 commercially insured individuals to find members with a pharmacy benefit-adjudicated claim for a TNF blocker or MS specialty medication during the period from July 2006 through June 2008. Prescription abandonment was assessed among continuously enrolled members newly initiating TNF blocker or MS therapy. Prescription abandonment was defined as reversal of the adjudicated claim with no evidence of a subsequent additional adjudicated paid claim in the ensuing 90 days. Separate analyses for MS and TNF blocker therapy were performed to assess the association between member OOP expense and abandonment rate using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend and multivariate logistic regression. Members were placed into 1 of the 7 following OOP expense groups per claim: $0-$100, $101-$150, $151-$200, $201-$250, $251-$350, $351-$500, or more than $500. The association of MS or TNF blocker abandonment rate with OOP expense was tested with logistic regression models using the $0-$100 OOP as the reference group and adjusting for age, gender, formulary status, ZIP code-level income and education, earliest specialty medication claim, and methotrexate use for the TNF blocker analysis.

RESULTS

Of 2,791 members presenting a prescription to newly initiate high-cost MS therapy, 1,985 (71.1%) of the claims were for a 1-month supply with most of the remainder for a 3-month supply; 2,303 (82.5%) had an OOP expense of $0-$100, and 5.4% had an OOP expense greater than $500. The abandonment rate increased as OOP increased (test for trend, P < 0.001). Members with an OOP expense of $100 or less had an abandonment rate of 5.7%. Among members in all OOP expense groups greater than $200, the abandonment rate was significantly higher, with more than 1 in 4 members abandoning their MS claims (P < 0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the abandonment rate became significantly higher at OOP expenses of $201 to $250 compared with an OOP expense of $100 or less (odds ratio [OR] = 7.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.3- 16.2). The odds ratios ranged between 6.1 and 7.3 for OOP expense groups greater than $200. Of 7,313 members presenting a prescription to newly initiate TNF blocker therapy, 5,809 (79.4%) of claims were for a 1-month supply with most of the remainder for a 3-month supply; 6,123 (83.7%) had an OOP expense of $0-$100 and 5.7% had an OOP expense greater than $500. The abandonment rate increased as OOP expense increased (test for trend, P < 0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the TNF blocker medication abandonment rate was significantly higher for all OOP expense groups greater than $100, with abandonment odds ratios of 2.3 to 4.4 for OOP expense between $101 and $500 compared with OOP expense of $0-$100. The odds of abandonment at OOP expense of greater than $500 were 7-fold higher (OR = 7.0, 95% CI = 5.4-9.1).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to perform a focused assessment of an association between specialty medication OOP expense and new therapy prescription abandonment. The study found that per claim OOP expenses greater than $100 for TNF blocker medication and greater than $200 for MS medication were associated with increased prescription abandonment. These findings coupled with previous research identifying a negative relationship between OOP expense above $100 per month and adherence, and the commercial insurance market response to fourth-tier OOP expenses, suggests that insurers should consider the impact that specialty OOP expense may have on adherence and member satisfaction. Further prospective research should be performed to confirm these findings and assess the clinical outcomes associated with prescription abandonment.

Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the issue of conjoint reliability over time.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was applied using scenarios that describe the effect of treating rheumatoid arthritis patients with TNF-alpha inhibitors, a novel class of highly effective, but expensive antirheumatic agents. Respondents participated in three face-to-face interviews over a period of 4 months. Reliability was measured both at the input level, where the consistency of matches made by respondents to the Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) question between replications was determined, and at the output level, where the parameters of the conjoint model were estimated and tested for joint significance and willingness to pay (WTP) confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Input level: Of the 1661 choices made in survey 1, 1316 were repeated in survey 2. Based on the observed number of consistently repeated choices and the expected number by chance, a fair agreement between the choices in the two surveys (chi2 = 324) was found. Of the 998 consistently repeated choices from survey 1 to survey 2, 818 were repeated in survey 3. There was again a high level of consistency between the choices in surveys 1 and 2 and the final choice in survey 3. Output level: The confidence intervals for WTP figures in surveys 1 and 2 and 1 and 3 were overlapping, implying that the DCE was reliable at the output level over time.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of consistent responses was higher than would be expected by chance. Conjoint reliability over time was found both at the input and output level.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who have inadequate response to standard treatment, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched up to July 2004.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review evaluated the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of etanercept and infliximab. The efficacy of DMARDs in the treatment of PsA was also reviewed and treatments were compared using Bayesian evidence synthesis methods. Following evaluation of existing economic evaluations of etanercept and infliximab in PsA, a new economic model was developed (the York Model). This utilised the results from the evidence synthesis and data from a range of other sources.

RESULTS

Across the two trials, at 12 weeks, around 65% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 {pooled relative risk (RR) 4.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.74 to 6.42]}, demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. In addition, around 45% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an ACR 50 [pooled RR 10.84 (95% CI 4.47 to 26.28)] and around 12% achieved an ACR 70 [pooled RR 16.28 (95% CI 2.20 to 120.54)], demonstrating a good level of efficacy. The subgroup analyses conducted in one trial revealed that the effect of etanercept was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. In addition, almost 85% of patients treated with etanercept achieved a Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) [pooled RR 2.60 (95% CI 1.96 to 3.45). The Psoriatic Area and Severity Index (PASI) results indicate some beneficial effect on psoriasis at 12 weeks; however, the data are sparse. The statistically significant reduction (improvement) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score with etanercept compared with placebo indicates a beneficial effect of etanercept on function. Similar results were seen at 24 weeks, except that the results for PASI 75 and PASI 50 now achieved statistical significance and data for Total Sharp Score annualised rate of progression were available; this was statistically significantly lower in etanercept-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients. Uncontrolled follow-up of patients indicates that treatment benefit may be maintained for at least 50 weeks. At 16 weeks, 65% of patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 20 [RR 6.80 (95% CI 2.89 to 16.01)], demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. This level of efficacy was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. Almost half the patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 50 [RR 49.00 (95% CI 3.06 to 785.06)] and over one-quarter achieved an ACR 70 [RR 31.00 (95% CI 1.90 to 504.86)] compared with none of the placebo group, demonstrating a good level of efficacy. In addition, 75% of patients treated with infliximab achieved a PsARC [RR 3.55 (95% CI 2.05 to 6.13)]. The beneficial treatment effect on psoriasis was also statistically significant with a mean difference in percentage change from baseline in PASI of -5 (95% CI -6.8 to -3.3), as was the percentage improvement from baseline in HAQ score with infliximab compared with placebo [mean difference 51.4 (95% CI 48.08 to 54.72)], indicating a beneficial effect of infliximab on functional status. Uncontrolled data from all measures of joint disease, psoriasis and HAQ collected up to 50 weeks of follow-up reflect those at 16 weeks. There were no radiographic assessments, so nothing can be determined about the potential or otherwise of infliximab to delay the progression of joint disease. Using the York cost-effectiveness model, infliximab was consistently dominated by etanercept because of its higher acquisition and administration costs without superior effectiveness. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of etanercept compared with palliative care ranged from 14,818 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,374 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) if it is assumed that, when patients eventually fail on biological therapy, their disability (in terms of HAQ score) deteriorates by the same amount as it improved when they initially respond to treatment (rebound equal to gain). Results for etanercept ranged from 25,443 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,441 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) per QALY gained under the assumption that, when patients fail on therapy, their disability level returns to what it would have been had they never responded (rebound equal to natural history).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited data available indicated that etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. Short-term data indicated that etanercept can delay joint disease progression, but long-term data are needed. There are no controlled data as yet to indicate that infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Treatment with both etanercept and infliximab for 12 weeks demonstrated a significant degree of efficacy, with no statistically significant difference between them. For both drugs, adverse events were common with mild injection/infusion reactions being the main treatment-related effect. The York model indicated that etanercept is more cost-effective than infliximab as it has a lower cost with little difference in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept is also sensitive to assumptions made about the extent of disease progression when patients are responding to therapy. The number of years for which a patient can be safely on biologicals is uncertain so these results should be considered with caution. Further research should include long-term controlled trials to confirm benefits, review adverse events and to explore further the implications of biologic therapy.

Introduction: Medicare Section 1013 and AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program

OBJECTIVE

To introduce Section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program.

BACKGROUND

AHRQ, under Section 1013 of the MMA of 2003, has been charged with conducting specific health care outcomes studies through the Effective Health Care Program. This research is aimed specifically at determining the safety and effectiveness of certain pharmaceuticals since comparative data is currently lacking. Highly utilized, high-cost (or both) treatments are the focus of the studies that will be conducted through AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) and the Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) Network. Current and completed projects are noted, including more detailed information on the reviews pertaining to treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-alpha therapies).

SUMMARY

AHRQ's EPCs and the DEcIDE Network are studying safety and the comparative effectiveness of a number of different pharmaceutical-related topics, including the safety and effectiveness of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDS (e.g., TNF antagonists). The final reports, once complete, will be translated (explained in terms that can be more easily understood by all decision makers) and then disseminated to all stakeholders.

Retention rates of tumor necrosis factor blockers in daily practice in 770 rheumatic patients

OBJECTIVE

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers are efficacious in clinical trials in rheumatic diseases. However, their efficacy in daily practice, depending on the specific diagnosis or the use of concomitant therapy, remains to be confirmed. Our objective was to evaluate TNF blocker retention rates and their predisposing factors in daily practice.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of all TNF blocker therapies in one center. Retention rate was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier survival data analysis technique in which the event was discontinuation of the drug due to inefficacy or toxicity with log-rank tests and a Cox proportional-hazards regression model.

RESULTS

From 1997 to 2004, 770 patients with inflammatory rheumatism received at least one TNF blocker; 142 received more than one agent (975 treatment courses: 493 etanercept, 335 infliximab, 147 adalimumab). The underlying disease was mainly rheumatoid arthritis (RA), found in 57.1% of patients, and spondyloarthropathies (SpA) in 37.7%. The percentage of patients receiving the same treatment at Month 12, 24, and 36 was 64.0%, 50.3%, and 39.4%, respectively. No difference between the 3 TNF blockers was found (p = 0.48). The retention rate was longer for the first treatment course [hazard ratio (HR) 2.17, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.82-2.58, p < 0.0001]; longer for patients with SpA (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.20-2.13, p = 0.001); and longer without concomitant DMARD (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.97, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate a lower retention rate of TNF blockers in daily practice compared with clinical trials, with no difference between the 3 currently available agents. Moreover, results suggest greater benefit in SpA. The role of concomitant DMARD remains to be confirmed.

Impact of medical practices on the costs of management of rheumatoid arthritis by anti-TNFalpha biological therapy in France

When the anti-TNFalpha drugs first came onto the market, their high price was the subject of much debate. Moreover, we must add the costs associated with their administration to the purchase price. Variations in medical practices may be the source of substantial variations in these costs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs involved with the use of infliximab and etanercept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to study the impact of variations in medical practices on them.

METHODS

A pragmatic cost minimization analysis was conducted from the payer's perspective to compare the costs of administration, that is, the direct medical costs, of the first two available anti-TNFalpha agents: infliximab and etanercept. Records of 60 patients from three university hospital rheumatology departments were reviewed retrospectively for a 52-week period. This analysis considered the following costs: purchase costs for the drugs and for any co-prescribed disease-modifying drugs, inpatient or outpatient administration, medical follow-up and the transportation costs associated with treatment that were reimbursed by the French health insurance system. Costs that did not differ between the two products were excluded (work-up for inclusion, etc.).

RESULTS

Data were collected for 58 patients, 30 treated with infliximab and 28 with etanercept. Patients' mean age was 52 years; 81% were women. RA had first developed on average 15 years earlier; the disease was positive for rheumatoid factors in 68% of cases and erosive in 93%. The total average annual cost of administration did not differ for infliximab and etanercept: 19,469 and 19,619 , respectively (P=0.56). The mean costs of administration nonetheless varied considerably between the three hospital centers: from 16,566 to 24,313 for infliximab (P<0.0001) and from 16,069 to 24,383 for etanercept (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The financial burden of biological treatments for RA is strongly influenced by the substantial heterogeneity in medical practices.

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockade in ankylosing spondylitis: a potent but expensive anti-inflammatory treatment or true disease modification?

Blocking tumor necrosis factor-α either with monoclonal antibodies or with soluble receptor constructs has been proven to be effective with an acceptable safety profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and more recently also in the diseases belonging to the spondyloarthropathy concept. Nevertheless multiple questions still remain unresolved especially concerning longer-term treatment. Data from a recent manuscript by Baraliakos and colleagues seem to indicate that at least for the vast majority of ankylosing spondylitis patients treatment with infliximab can not be withdrawn, if one wants to control disease activity in a continuous way. Although still unproven, this might be of crucial importance with regard to structure modification and prevention of ankylosis in this chronic inflammatory disorder.

[Farmacoeconomic impact of anti-TNF-alpha]

The anti-TNF-alpha are undoubtedly an efficacious cure in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but their costs are so high that a thorough pharmacoeconomical evaluation is needed in order to identify the specific conditions in which their use is to be considered convenient. For this reason there are related the most important experiences that have studied the cost-efficacy and cost-utility relationships of anti-TNF-alpha drugs, which have been made marketable in Italy. The data available, unfortunately, are too various to allow a final settlement of the chart of convenience between the different therapeutic alternatives. Moreover the socio-medical reality in Italy is so much different from the ones in other countries that it is impossible to try and use the foreign experiences. In a country of high social commitment like Italy, a fair judgment can thereafter be made only when the issue is considered related to our society, taking in account the summation of the medical costs endured by the National Health System, the patient's expenses and the ones that are a consequence of the loss of productivity.

The contingent ranking method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care?

The Contingent Ranking Method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? The objective of the study was to determine the feasibility and validity of the contingent ranking method, when eliciting preferences and measuring willingness to pay for health care. A measurement experiment based on ranking data is reported. Marginal willingness to pay for alleviation of rheumatoid arthritis symptoms that may be the outcome of a treatment with a novel anti-rheumatic agent, cA2 (now called TNF-alpha blockade) was calculated. The estimated marginal willingness to pay value was 650 DKK ($93). With regard to the health status variables and income variable the signs of the coefficients were, as expected, positive. The contingent ranking method is a feasible and valid method for eliciting preferences and determining willingness to pay estimates.