Modelling outcomes of complex treatment strategies following a clinical guideline for treatment decisions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals

INTRODUCTION

Health economics is a thriving sub-discipline of economics. Applied health economics research is considered essential in the health care sector and is used extensively by public policy makers. For scholars, it is important to understand the history and status of health economics-when it emerged, the rate of research output, trending topics, and its temporal evolution-to ensure clarity and direction when formulating research questions.

METHODS

Nearly 13,000 articles were analysed, which were found in the collective publications of the ten most specialised health economic journals. We explored this literature using patterns of term co-occurrence and document co-citation.

RESULTS

The research output in this field is growing exponentially. Five main research divisions were identified: (i) macroeconomic evaluation, (ii) microeconomic evaluation, (iii) measurement and valuation of outcomes, (iv) monitoring mechanisms (evaluation), and (v) guidance and appraisal. Document co-citation analysis revealed eighteen major research streams and identified variation in the magnitude of activities in each of the streams. A recent emergence of research activities in health economics was seen in the Medicaid Expansion stream. Established research streams that continue to show high levels of activity include Child Health, Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Cost-effectiveness. Conversely, Patient Preference, Health Care Expenditure and Economic Evaluation are now past their peak of activity in specialised health economic journals. Analysis also identified several streams that emerged in the past but are no longer active.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics is a growing field, yet there is minimal evidence of creation of new research trends. Over the past 10 years, the average rate of annual increase in internationally collaborated publications is almost double that of domestic collaborations (8.4% vs 4.9%), but most of the top scholarly collaborations remain between six countries only.

The unsustainable bubble of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatology

The high prices of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) put pressure on the health-care budgets for patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. High prices appear to reflect added value. According to the value-based health-care model, value is proportional to patient-reported outcomes and experiences (satisfaction) and inversely proportional to health-care costs. The question addressed in this Viewpoint is whether the many novel DMARDs, all of which are similarly effective and safe but disproportionally expensive in comparison to conventional synthetic DMARDs, fulfil the promise of added value. It is proposed that the added value of the newest biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs is questionable at best, and that their added value is limited to patients who do not respond adequately to standard-of-care treatment. The added value for each novel DMARD decreases with each additional DMARD that obtains market authorisation, and the number of patients with treatment-refractory disease declines as a result of an ever-improving standard of care. Yet, the prices of DMARDs remain high and even tend to increase. Explanations for the perpetually high cost of these drugs despite a dubious added value relate to system characteristics, such as regulatory uncoupling of drug approval, pricing, and reimbursement; profuse and effective marketing of novel drugs; the existence of strategic patenting; and effective lobbying. To constrain DMARD expenses in rheumatology, to put more pressure on manufacturers, and to serve as many patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases as possible with affordable care, I propose that rheumatologists judge more critically which patients truly need expensive DMARDs and choose more wisely. Four simple behavioural measures are proposed to this end.

Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions

Sequential use of alternative treatments for chronic conditions represents a complex intervention pathway; previous treatment and patient characteristics affect both the choice and effectiveness of subsequent treatments. This paper critically explores the methods for quantitative evidence synthesis of the effectiveness of sequential treatment options within a health technology assessment (HTA) or similar process. It covers methods for developing summary estimates of clinical effectiveness or the clinical inputs for the cost-effectiveness assessment and can encompass any disease condition. A comprehensive review of current approaches is presented, which considers meta-analytic methods for assessing the clinical effectiveness of treatment sequences and decision-analytic modelling approaches used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment sequences. Estimating the effectiveness of a sequence of treatments is not straightforward or trivial and is severely hampered by the limitations of the evidence base. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sequences were often absent or very limited. In the absence of sufficient RCTs of whole sequences, there is no single best way to evaluate treatment sequences; however, some approaches could be re-used or adapted, sharing ideas across different disease conditions. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and is influenced by the evidence available, extent of treatment sequences (number of treatment lines or permutations), and complexity of the decision problem. Due to the scarcity of data, modelling studies applied simplifying assumptions to data on discrete treatments. A taxonomy for all possible assumptions was developed, providing a unique resource to aid the critique of existing decision-analytic models.

Cost-utility analyses of targeted immunomodulators in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review

Aims: Cost-utility (CU) modeling is a common technique used to determine whether new treatments represent good value for money. As with any modeling exercise, findings are a direct result of methodology choices, which may vary widely. Several targeted immuno-modulators have been launched in recent years to treat moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) which have been evaluated using CU methods. Our objectives were to identify common and innovative modeling choices in moderate-to-severe RA and to highlight their implications for future models in RA.Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify CU models in moderate-to-severe RA published from January 2013 to June 2019. Studies must have included an active comparator and used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the common measure of effectiveness. Modeling methods were characterized by stakeholder perspective, simulation type, mapping between parameters, and data sources.Results: Thirty-one published modeling studies were reviewed spanning 13 countries and 9 drugs, with common methodological choices and innovations observed among them. Over the evaluated time period, we observed common methods and assumptions that are becoming more prominent in the RA CU modeling landscape, including patient-level simulations, two-stage models combining trial results and real-world evidence, real-world treatment durations, long-term health consequences, and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)-related hospitalization costs. Models that consider the societal perspective are increasingly being developed as well.Limitations: This review did not consider studies that did not report QALYs as a utility measure, models published only as conference abstracts, or cost-consequence models that did not report an incremental CU ratio.Conclusions: CU modeling for RA increasingly reflects real-world conditions and patient experiences which are anticipated to provide better information in the assessment of health technologies. Future CU models in RA should consider applying the observed advances in modeling choices to optimize their CU predictions and simulation of real-world outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intensive combinations of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS) achieve similar clinical benefits more cheaply than high-cost biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose illness has failed to respond to methotrexate and another DMARD.

METHODS

We used within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and 2 societal perspectives. Participants were recruited into an open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, 2-arm, noninferiority trial in 24 rheumatology clinics in England and Wales. Costs were linked with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years derived from 2 measures (Short-Form 36 health survey and EuroQol 5-domain 3-level instrument).

RESULTS

In total, 205 participants were recruited, 104 in the csDMARD arm and 101 in the TNFi arm. Participants in the csDMARD arm with poor response at 6 months were offered TNFi; 46 participants (44%) switched. Relevant cost and outcome data were available for 93% of participants at 6-month follow-up and for 91-92% of participants at 12-month follow-up. The csDMARD arm had significantly lower total costs from all perspectives (6-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£3,615 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4,104, -3,182]; 12-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£1,930 [95% CI -2,599, -1,301]). The HAQ score showed benefit to the csDMARD arm at 12 months (-0.16 [95% CI -0.32, -0.01]); other outcomes/follow-ups showed no differences.

CONCLUSION

Starting treatment with csDMARDs, rather than TNFi, achieves similar outcomes at significantly lower costs. Patients with active RA and who meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for expensive biologics can be treated with combinations of intensive csDMARDs in a cost-effective manner.

Conceptual model for the health technology assessment of current and novel interventions in rheumatoid arthritis

The objective of this study was to evaluate current approaches to economic modeling in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and propose a new conceptual model for evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of RA interventions. We followed recommendations from the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research-Society of Medical Decision Making (ISPOR-SMDM) Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. The process involved scoping the decision problem by a working group and drafting a preliminary cost-effectiveness model framework. A systematic literature review (SLR) of existing decision-analytic models was performed and analysis of an RA registry was conducted to inform the structure of the draft conceptual model. Finally, an expert panel was convened to seek input on the draft conceptual model. The proposed conceptual model consists of three separate modules: 1) patient characteristic module, 2) treatment module, and 3) outcome module. Consistent with the scope, the conceptual model proposed six changes to current economic models in RA. These changes proposed are to: 1) use composite measures of disease activity to evaluate treatment response as well as disease progression (at least two measures should be considered, one as the base case and one as a sensitivity analysis); 2) conduct utility mapping based on disease activity measures; 3) incorporate subgroups based on guideline-recommended prognostic factors; 4) integrate realistic treatment patterns based on clinical practice/registry datasets; 5) assimilate outcomes that are not joint related (extra-articular outcomes); and 6) assess mortality based on disease activity. We proposed a conceptual model that incorporates the current understanding of clinical and real-world evidence in RA, as well as of existing modeling assumptions. The proposed model framework was reviewed with experts and could serve as a foundation for developing future cost-effectiveness models in RA.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for early, rapidly progressing rheumatoid arthritis by simulating the reversible and irreversible effects of the disease

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy in early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when explicitly modelling short-term (reversible) and long-term (irreversible, ie, joint damage) disease activity and physical function.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed to unify, in a single cost-effectiveness model, measures of reversible and irreversible disease activity and physical function based on data from the PREMIER trial. Short term, reversible disease activity was modelled using DAS28 variables, including swollen joint counts, tender joint counts, C reactive protein concentration and pain. The DAS28 variables were then used in a logistic regression to predict short-term American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, which informed treatment continuation and switches. Long term, irreversible, radiographically documented joint damage was modelled using modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS). The model then linked both short-term disease activity and mTSS to the Health Assessment Questionnaire score, which was used to calculate direct and indirect costs, and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

When both reversible and irreversible effects of therapy were included, combination therapy was estimated to produce 6-month 50% ACR responses in 75% of patients versus 54% in MTX monotherapy. Compared to MTX monotherapy, combination therapy resulted in 2.68 and 3.04 discounted life years and QALYs gained, respectively. Combination therapy also resulted in a net increase in direct costs of £106,207 for a resulting incremental cost/QALY gain of £32,425. When indirect costs were included in the analysis, the ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) decreased to £27,238. Disregarding irreversible effects increased the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to £78,809 (when only direct costs were included).

CONCLUSIONS

Starting with adalimumab plus MTX combination therapy in early, aggressive RA is cost-effective when irreversible damage is adequately considered.