Cost-Effectiveness of Tofacitinib for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in China

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Real-World Clinical Equivalence of Generic and Branded Tofacitinib: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To explore the clinical efficacy and safety of generic tofacitinib vs brand name tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a single-center comparative study based on a prospective real-world cohort.

METHODS

Patients with RA receiving tofacitinib, either generic (Kelejia) or branded (Xeljanz), from March 2017, to December 31, 2022, were enrolled. The primary outcome was the simplified disease activity index (SDAI)-defined remission rate at month 6. Secondary outcomes included the rates of remission and low disease activity defined by other composite scores; European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response rate, and ultrasonic synovitis scores at months 1, 3, 6, and 12. Cost-effectiveness was investigated. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was adopted to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were enrolled: 59 in the generic group and 145 in the branded group. An SDAI-defined remission was achieved in 41.1% and 39.2% of patients in the generic and branded groups, respectively, at month 6 (P=.85). Rates of remission and low disease activity achievement, changes in clinical disease activity scores, and power Doppler and gray scale synovitis scores at months 1, 3, 6, and 12 were comparable between the 2 groups. Similar proportions of patients in the groups achieved moderate/good response at months 1, 3, 6, and 12. Rates of drug retention and adverse effects were also similar in the 2 groups. Both Kelejia and Xeljanz were cost-effective, but Kelejia had a lower average cost-effectiveness ratio.

CONCLUSION

Generic tofacitinib (Keljia) had equivalent clinical efficacy and safety and better cost-effectiveness compared with its originator (Xeljanz).

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Cost-effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

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.

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

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.

Small Molecule Drugs in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), mainly represented by Crohn’s disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC), are chronic disorders with an unclear pathogenesis. This incurable and iterative intestinal mucosal inflammation requires the life-long use of anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent flares or relapses, which are the major providers of complications, such as small bowel strictures and intestinal perforations. The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors and other compounds, such as anti-IL12/23 and anti-alpha4/beta7 integrin monoclonal antibodies, has considerably improved the clinical management of IBDs. They are now the standard of care, being the first-line therapy in patients with aggressive disease and in patients with moderate to severe disease with an inadequate response to conventional therapy. However, for approximately one third of all patients, their efficacy remains insufficient by a lack or loss of response due to the formation of anti-drug antibodies or compliance difficulties with parenteral formulations. To address these issues, orally administered Small Molecules Drugs (SMDs) that use a broad range of novel pharmacological pathways, such as JAK inhibitors, sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators, and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, have been developed for CD and UC. This article provides an updated and complete review of the most recently authorized SMDs and SMDs in phase II/III development.

Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on a Mapping Algorithm Derived from a Chinese Population

INTRODUCTION

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

An individual patient simulation model was used to estimate the lifetime cost and effectiveness. The comparator sequence commenced with etanercept, followed by rituximab-tocilizumab- non-biologic therapy. The intervention sequences were assumed to add tofacitinib to different positions in the comparator sequence. Quality-of-life estimates were generated by mapping Health Assessment Questionnaire scores to utility with the algorithm derived from a Chinese population. Scenario analyses, univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared with the comparator sequence, patients receiving tofacitinib as the first-, second-, third- and fourth-line treatment gained additional 0.49, 0.59, 0.44 and 0.53 QALYs, respectively, and the use of tofacitinib as the first- and second-line treatment was less costly, whereas the use of tofacitinib as the third- and fourth-line treatment cost an additional $234,998 and $381,116, respectively. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $333.73 and $9669.34/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib is estimated to be dominant in both the first- and second-line settings and to be highly cost-effective in both the third- and fourth-line settings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Baricitinib for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate Failed in China

INTRODUCTION

A phase 3 (RA-BEAM study) clinical trial reported that baricitinib (BCT) + methotrexate (MTX) had clinical improvement compared with adalimumab (ADA) + MTX as a first-line strategy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had inadequate responses to MTX monotherapy. However, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness of introducing BCT into current treatment for patients with RA unresponsive to MTX remains unclear.

METHODS

A patient-level microsimulation model was used to extrapolate the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and other outcomes. This study compared treatment sequences with or without first-line BCT with current treatment sequences, including adalimumab, etanercept, tocilizumab, and palliative care. Effectiveness and physical function were assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). The input parameters of the model, comprising patient characteristics (sex and age) and treatment efficacy (ACR responses and HAQ score), were derived from a phase III clinical trial and network meta-analysis. The total cost estimation included direct costs and indirect costs. Probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses were performed, as were a series of scenario analyses.

RESULTS

The lifetime analysis revealed that adding BCT as a first-line treatment resulted in a QALY gain of 2.66 years; this gain would cost an incremental $26,662, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10,036/QALY per patient compared with the current treatment sequence. Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed the results to be robust.

CONCLUSIONS

From a Chinese payer perspective, the introduction of BCT into the current treatment sequence is projected to be a cost-effective option as first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe RA.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilars, Biologics and JAK1 Inhibitors for Active Crohn Disease

Background: Crohn disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects quality of life. There are several drugs available for the treatment of CD, but their relative efficacy is unknown due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

Aim: To perform a mixed comparison of the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors for CD.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to Dec. 28, 2020. Only RCTs that compared the efficacy or safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors with placebo or another active agent for CD were included in the comparative analysis. Efficacy outcomes were the induction of remission, maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission, and safety outcomes were serious adverse events (AEs) and infections. The Bayesian method was utilized to compare the treatments. The registration number is CRD42020187807.

Results: Twenty-eight studies and 29 RCTs were identified in our systematic review. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab and adalimumab were superior to certolizumab pegol (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.35–4.97; OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.57–5.40, respectively) and tofacitinib (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.27–5.97; OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.47–6.52, respectively) and revealed the superiority of CT-P13 compared with placebo (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.31–7.59) for the induction of remission. Infliximab (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.85–34.77), adalimumab (OR 10.76, 95% CI 2.61–52.35), certolizumab pegol (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.10–21.08), vedolizumab (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.19–25.54) and CT-P13 (OR 10.93, 95% CI 2.10–64.37) were superior to filgotinib for the maintenance of remission. Moreover, infliximab (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.49–10.23), adalimumab (OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.43–16.95), vedolizumab (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.21–6.52) and CT-P13 (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.05–27.58) were superior to placebo for steroid-free remission. Among all treatments, adalimumab ranked highest for the induction of remission, and CT-P13 ranked highest for the maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission.

Conclusion: CT-P13 was more efficacious than numerous biological agents and JAK1 inhibitors and should be recommended for the treatment of CD. Further head-to-head RCTs are warranted to compare these drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of Triple Therapy vs. Biologic Treatment Sequence as First-line Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients after Methotrexate Failure

Introduction

A clinical trial (RACAT) reported the noninferiority of triple therapy compared to biologic agents (etanercept + methotrexate), and previous studies confirmed that biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are more expensive but less beneficial than triple therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom methotrexate (MTX) fails. However, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus bDMARD treatment sequences as a first-line therapy for patients with RA is still unclear.

Methods

An individual patient simulation model was used to extrapolate the lifetime cost and health outcomes by tracing patients from initial treatment through switches to further treatment lines in a sequence. Therapeutic efficacy and physical function were evaluated using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), and Health Assessment Questionnaire score. All input parameters in the model were derived from published studies, national databases, local hospitals, and experts’ opinions. Both direct costs and indirect costs were taken into consideration. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainty of the model, as were multiple scenario analyses.

Results

The lifetime analysis demonstrated that triple therapy was associated with lower costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than bDMARD sequences. These resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from $87,090/QALY to $104,032/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in China ($30,950/QALY). The baseline DAS28 impacted the model outcomes the most. Scenario analyses indicated that adding triple therapy to bDMARD sequences as a first-, second-, third-, or fourth-line therapy is very cost-effective, at a WTP of $10,316/QALY.

Conclusions

From a Chinese payer perspective, triple therapy as first-line treatment in treatment sequence could be regarded as cost-effectiveness option for patients who failed MTX, compared to bDMARDs as first-line treatment, and instead of prescribing triple therapy as a substitute for bDMARDs as a first-line treatment, adding triple therapy to the bDMARD treatment sequence is likely to be very cost-effective for patients with active RA compared to bDMARD sequences.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00300-4.