Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial

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.

Pre-defined gene co-expression modules in rheumatoid arthritis transition towards molecular health following anti-TNF therapy

BACKGROUND

No reliable biomarkers to predict response to TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in RA patients currently exist. The aims of this study were to replicate changes in gene co-expression modules that were previously reported in response to TNFi therapy in RA; to test if changes in module expression are specific to TNFi therapy; and to determine whether module expression transitions towards a disease-free state in responding patients.

METHOD

Published transcriptomic data from the whole blood of disease-free controls (n = 10) and RA patients, treated with the TNFi adalimumab (n = 70) or methotrexate (n = 85), were studied. Treatment response was assessed using the EULAR response criteria following 3 or 6 months of treatment. Change in transcript expression between pre- and post-treatment was recorded for previously defined modules. Linear mixed models tested whether modular expression after treatment transitioned towards a disease-free state.

RESULTS

For 25 of the 27 modules, change in expression between pre- and post-treatment in the adalimumab cohort replicated published findings. Of these 25 modules, six transitioned towards a disease-free state by 3 months (P < 0.05), irrespective of clinical response. One module (M3.2), related to inflammation and TNF biology, significantly correlated with response to adalimumab. Similar patterns of modular expression, with reduced magnitude, were observed in the methotrexate cohort.

CONCLUSION

This study provides independent validation of changes in module expression in response to therapy in RA. However, these effects are not specific to TNFi. Further studies are required to determine whether specific modules could assist molecular classification of therapeutic response.

The economic burden of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Previous U.S. economic burden estimates for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) varied from $85.6 to 148.1 billion annually. However, these estimates do not reflect comparative amounts spent on RA treatment options in addition to other medical expenditures. Therefore, this study's goal was to comparatively analyze the overall economic burden of U.S. patients treated for RA using conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus TNF alpha biologic DMARDs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective observational study analyzed Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component data from 2016 to 2018. Healthcare utilization, total medical expenditures, and out-of-pocket expenditures were compared between RA medication groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-five adult RA patients experiencing 603 RA-related events, including at least one medical visit, between 2016 and 2018 were identified. Rheumatic arthritis-attributable medical expenditures among patients prescribed DMARDs were $11.4 billion. Average total medical expenditures were significantly higher for the TNF alpha biologic group $26,216.67 (95% CI: $19,502.84-$32,930.5) versus $5,388.52 (95% CI: $2,768.25-$8,008.79) for the conventional DMARD group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RA patients receiving TNF alpha biologics experienced significantly higher total medical and out-of-pocket expenditures; however, they have experienced fewer or no occurrences of high-cost drivers of healthcare utilization compared to patients receiving conventional DMARDs.

One-year direct costs of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and its predictive factors: data from the Moroccan RBSMR registry

The aim of the study was to estimate the annual direct costs of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to establish possible factors associated with those costs. The main data source was the Moroccan registry of biological therapies in rheumatic diseases (RBSMR Registry). We included patients with available 1-year data. Variables related to socio-economic status, disease and biological therapy were collected. Direct costs included prices of biologics, costs of infusions, and subcutaneous injections. Differences in costs across groups were tested by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Correlations analysis was performed in search of factors associated with high costs. We included 197 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The mean age was 52.3 ± 11 years, with female predominance 86.8%. Receiving one of the following therapies: rituximab (n = 132), tocilizumab (n = 37), or TNF-blockers (n = 28). Median one-year direct costs per patient were €1665 [€1472-€9879]. The total annual direct costs were € 978,494. Rituximab, constituted 25.7% of the total annual budget. TNF-blockers and tocilizumab represented 27.3% and 47% of this overall budget, respectively. Although the costs were not significantly different in terms of gender or level of study, the insurance type significantly affected the cost estimation. A positive correlation was found between the annual direct cost and body mass index (r = 0.15, p = 0.04). In Morocco, a developing country, the annual direct costs of biological therapy are high. Our results may contribute to the development of strategies for better governance of these costs.

Safety and Tolerability of Subcutaneous Methotrexate in Routine Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To show the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) methotrexate (MTX) compared to oral MTX, alternative disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) monotherapy, biologic monotherapy, and combinations (conventional and biologic combination groups) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively analyzed for rheumatology clinic attendances at a large Northeast England hospital trust between January 2014 and January 2018. Rates of adverse events and stop events (transaminitis [serum alanine aminotransferase level of >80 units/liter] or neutropenia [neutrophil count of <2.0 × 10⁹ /liter]) were calculated, with adjustment for duration of DMARD exposure.

RESULTS

In the present study, 8,394 patients received DMARDs, with 2,093 patients receiving oral MTX and 949 patients receiving SC MTX. The median dose was 15 mg (interquartile range [IQR] 10-20 mg) for oral MTX, and 20 mg (IQR 15-25 mg) for SC MTX (P < 0.0001). Continuation rates were higher for SC MTX therapy when adjusted for follow-up duration, with a rate ratio (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.40-1.70) (P < 0.0001). For the time period assessed, 2,382 patients experienced 4,358 adverse events, with 1,711 incidents of transaminitis and 2,647 incidents of neutropenia recorded. Significantly fewer adverse events were observed in patients who received SC MTX monotherapy versus those who received biologic and combination DMARD therapies (P < 0.01). Compared to oral MTX, SC MTX was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward lower rates of neutropenia, but only a slightly higher rate of transaminitis (RR 1.26 [95% CI 1.07-1.48]) (P = 0.006), despite significantly higher doses of MTX.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous MTX is safe in routine clinical practice. This is the largest study yet reported on SC MTX and provides observational data that SC MTX is continued longer and better tolerated in patients compared to other therapy groups, especially oral MTX.