1
|
Fatemi B, Yaghobi N, Shobeiri N, Ahmadi R, Mousavi T, Soleymani F, Rezaei S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2024:1-10. [PMID: 39105220 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2024.2390041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2024] [Revised: 06/28/2024] [Accepted: 07/29/2024] [Indexed: 08/07/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND As rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic and progressive disease that requires lifelong therapeutic intervention, it represents a considerable economic burden on those affected. This study investigated whether tofacitinib is a cost-effective therapeutic alternative to other DMARDs for treating moderate-to-severe RA. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS All economic evaluation studies of tofacitinib compared to other DMARDs were identified. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled incremental net benefit (INB) in (purchasing power parity) adjusted US$ with 95% confidence intervals. The modified economic evaluation bias checklist and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument for quality appraisal were used. The subgroup analysis was done based on the comparator regimen. RESULTS Of the selected 11 studies, the number of studies from high-, upper-middle- and lower-middle-income countries was 7, 3, and 1, respectively. The subgroup analysis showed that tofacitinib with an INB of 19,180 US$ [95% CI, -34520 to -3840; p-value = 0.01] was not statistically cost-effective compared with cDMARDs (p-value > 0.0001). Compared to other DMARDs, the estimated pooled INB of tofacitinib was US$ 7260 [95% CI, 3030 to 11,480; p-value < 0.001], but there was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies, and the observed publication bias. CONCLUSION While tofacitinib shows potential as a cost-effective treatment, tailored economic evaluations are needed to account for the diverse and evolving contexts of RA treatment. REGISTRATION PROSPERO: CRD42023405970.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Behzad Fatemi
- Pharmaceutical Management and Economics Research Center (PMERC), The Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (TIPS), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Neda Yaghobi
- Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharma Management, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Nikta Shobeiri
- Department of Pharmaceutical Control, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
| | - Razieh Ahmadi
- Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharma Management, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Taraneh Mousavi
- Toxicology & Diseases Group, Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center (PSRC), The Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (TIPS), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Toxicology & Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Fatemeh Soleymani
- Pharmaceutical Management and Economics Research Center (PMERC), The Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (TIPS), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Management, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Soheila Rezaei
- Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharma Management, School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kumar S, Bagepally BS. Cost-effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2023; 23:1027-1040. [PMID: 37604704 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2249610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2023] [Revised: 07/12/2023] [Accepted: 08/14/2023] [Indexed: 08/23/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sajith Kumar
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| | - Bhavani Shankara Bagepally
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cost Effectiveness of Rituximab Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Utility Studies. Clin Drug Investig 2023; 43:97-108. [PMID: 36624250 DOI: 10.1007/s40261-022-01238-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Depletion of B cells is shown to be clinically effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Although B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab is indicated for RA patients who have failed to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), primary cost-effectiveness evidence is inconsistent. We aimed to provide synthesised cost-effectiveness evidence of rituximab in the treatment of RA compared to other DMARDs, since the published cost-effectiveness evidence is mixed. METHODS We identified economic evaluation studies reporting cost-utility of rituximab compared to other DMARDs by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled incremental net benefit (INB) in (purchasing power parity) adjusted US$ with 95% confidence intervals. We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument for quality appraisal. The study protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021222541. RESULTS Of the selected 18 studies, the majority were from high-income countries (n = 14) followed by upper middle-income countries (n = 3) and lower middle-income countries (n = 1), with minimal risk of bias. Rituximab is significantly cost effective with a pooled INB (95% CI) of $8767 (720 to 16,814). On subgroup analysis, rituximab is significantly cost effective from a health system perspective [$12,832 (3392 to 22,272)], for studies using 3.5% discount rate [$15,468 (5973 to 24,963)] and a for a time horizon of less than 5 years [$8496 (1547 to 15,445)]. In a separate analysis, rituximab as third-line therapy (for conventional synthetic DMARDs followed by any other biologic DMARD failed patients) was not cost effective compared to DMARDs [$5314 (-2278 to 12,905)]. Further, the GRADE assessment indicated very-low confidence in the pooled results. CONCLUSION Rituximab is cost effective compared to other DMARDs but not if used as third-line therapy after failure of biologics. There is a need to generate context-specific evidence for the lower income settings.
Collapse
|
4
|
Kumar SS, Haridoss M, Venkataraman K, Bagepally BS. Cost-effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies. Front Pharmacol 2022; 13:1090361. [PMID: 36582538 PMCID: PMC9792993 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1090361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK-i), a class of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tDMARDs), are suggested as second or third-line therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Synthesized cost-effective evidence would aid in informed decision-making given the similar clinical effectiveness of JAKi, but incongruent cost-effectiveness reports. Methods: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers' cost-effective analysis registry. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model and the heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Modified economic evaluation bias checklist was used to assess the quality of selected studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's test. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was performed to assess the certainty of outcomes presented. Results: We included seventeen relevant studies for systematic review, of which fifteen were eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that JAK-i is cost-effective compared to csDMARDS/bDMARDs with a pooled INB (INBp) of $19,886 (95% CI, 1,635 to 38,137) but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99.14). As a second-line treatment for csDMARD failed RA, JAK-i is cost-effective than csDMARD/bDMARD with a pooled INB of $23,144 (74.1-46,214) and high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.67). But on a separate analysis JAK-i as second-line treatment is not cost-effective than TNF-a-i (INBp = $25,813, -5,714 to 57,340). However, leave-one-out analysis found that omitting a single outlier makes JAK-i cost-effective. Further, JAK-i is not cost-effective as a third-line treatment for csDMARD-TNF-a-I failed RA, compared to csDMARDs/bDMARDs with INBp $26,157 (-7,284 to 59,598). Conclusion: Meta-analysis suggests that JAK-i is cost-effective when used after csDMARD failure but not cost-effective when used after csDMARD-TNF-a-i failure with low certainty of evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021222541, identifier CRD42021222541.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S. Sajith Kumar
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| | - Madhumitha Haridoss
- Health Technology Assessment Resource Centre, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tan C, Luo X, Li S, Yi L, Zeng X, Peng L, Qin S, Wang L, Wan X. Sequences of biological treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the era of treat-to-target in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clin Rheumatol 2021; 41:63-73. [PMID: 34373933 DOI: 10.1007/s10067-021-05876-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Revised: 07/18/2021] [Accepted: 07/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are recommended to be added in sequentially in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). All these drugs, however, are substantially more expensive than conventional synthetic DMARDs throughout the world, including in China. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of bDMARDs for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS An individual patient simulation model was used to track the course of patients from first treatment through switches to further lines in a sequence. The comparator treatment sequence commenced with methotrexate, followed by non-biologic therapy. The intervention sequences were assumed to be the combinations of bDMARDs available, followed by non-biologic therapy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS Compared with the comparator treatment sequence, bDMARDs sequences were associated with more life years, QALYs, and cost. These produced ICERs ranged from $27,441.36/QALY to $40,149.2/QALY, above the willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,378 per QALY. The uncertainty analyses and the scenario analyses confirmed the result of the base case analysis. CONCLUSIONS From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, bDMARDs sequences are estimated not to be cost-effective compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug strategy for patients with moderate-to-severe RA at a WTP threshold of $10,378 per QALY. Price reductions are warranted to make bDMARDs cost-effective and affordable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chongqing Tan
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 139 Renmin Rd, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.,Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Xia Luo
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 139 Renmin Rd, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.,Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Sini Li
- The Xiangya Nursing School, Central South University, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China
| | - Lidan Yi
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 139 Renmin Rd, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.,Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Xiaohui Zeng
- PET Imaging Center, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Liubao Peng
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 139 Renmin Rd, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.,Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Shuxia Qin
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 139 Renmin Rd, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.,Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Liting Wang
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 139 Renmin Rd, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.,Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China
| | - Xiaomin Wan
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 139 Renmin Rd, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China. .,Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China.
| |
Collapse
|