Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Treatment Sequence Initiating With Etanercept Compared With Leflunomide in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Impact of Reduced Etanercept Cost With Patent Expiration in South Korea

Challenges of Incorporating Life Cycle Drug Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Models: A Review of Methods and Modeling Suggestions

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a review of existing methods used to incorporate life cycle drug pricing (LCDP) in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), identify common methodological challenges, and suggest modeling approaches for prospectively implementing LCDP in CEA.

METHODS

Two complementary searches were conducted in PubMed, combined with hand searching and reference mining, to identify English language full-text articles that explored (1) how drug prices change over time and (2) methods used to apply dynamic pricing in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs). Relevant articles were reviewed, and authors discussed the common methodological practices used in the literature and their associated challenges on prospectively implementing LCDP in CEMs. For each key challenge identified, we provide modeling suggestions to address the issue.

RESULTS

We screened 1200 studies based on title and abstract; 117 were reviewed for eligibility, and 47 individual studies were included across both searches. Variations in prices over a product's life cycle are complex and multifactorial, and models applying LCDP in CEA varied in their methodology. We identified 4 key challenges to modeling LCDP in CEA, including how to model price trends before and after loss of exclusivity, how to capture the effect of price changes on future patient cohorts, and how to report results.

CONCLUSION

Accurately quantifying the impact of LCDP requires careful consideration of multiple aspects pertaining to both the evolution of drug prices and how to reflect these in CEA. Although uncertainties remain, our findings can aid implementation and evaluation of LCDP in economic evaluations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biosimilars vs Leflunomide in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Importance

Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate, a treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) provides better clinical efficacy compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs recommended by current treatment guidelines; but its cost-effectiveness evidence remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs after failure with methotrexate vs leflunomide and inform formulary listing decisions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation's cost-effectiveness analysis was performed at a Hong Kong public institution using the Markov disease transition model to simulate the lifetime disease progression and cost for patients with RA, using monetary value in 2022. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the internal validity of the modeling conclusion. Participants included patients diagnosed with RA from 2000 to 2021 who were retrieved retrospectively from local electronic medical records to generate model input parameters. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2023 to March 2024.

Interventions

The model assesses 3 competing treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13), biosimilar adalimumab (ABP-501), and leflunomide; all used in combination with methotrexate.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime health care cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the simulated cohort.

Results

In total, 25 099 patients with RA were identified (mean [SD] age, 56 [17] years; 19 469 [72.7%] women). In the base-case analysis, the lifetime health care cost and QALYs for the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide were US $154 632 and 14.82 QALYs, respectively; for biosimilar infliximab, they were US $152 326 and 15.35 QALYs, respectively; and for biosimilar adalimumab, they were US $145 419 and 15.55 QALYs, respectively. Both biosimilar sequences presented lower costs and greater QALYs than the leflunomide sequence. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (US$/QALY) comparing biosimilar infliximab sequence vs leflunomide sequence and biosimilar adalimumab sequence vs leflunomide sequence ranged from -15 797 to -8615 and -9088 to 10 238, respectively, all below the predefined willingness-to-pay threshold (US $48 555/QALY gain). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide, biosimilar infliximab, and biosmilar adalimumab being cost-effective out of 10 000 iterations was 0%, 9%, and 91%, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation study, the treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs were cost-effective compared with the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide in managing patients with RA who experienced failure with the initial methotrexate treatment. These results suggest the need to update clinical treatment guidelines for initiating biosimilars immediately after the failure of methotrexate for patients with RA.

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.

The Effect of the Drug Life Cycle Price on Cost-Effectiveness: Case Studies Using Real-World Pricing Data

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) generally assume constant drug prices throughout the model time horizon, yet it is known that prices are not constant, often with price decreases near loss of exclusivity (LOE). This study explores the impact of using dynamic drug-specific prices on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using selected reproduced case studies.

METHODS

Case studies were selected following explicit criteria to reflect a variety of drug characteristics. For each drug, a published CEA model was identified, replicated, and modified with dynamic real-world pricing data, to compare ICERs based on constant drug prices with estimates obtained when including drug life cycle pricing. The impact of dynamic real-world pricing-inclusive LOE-was analyzed using a single patient cohort and multiple cohorts over time.

RESULTS

Fluvastatin, alendronic acid + colecalciferol combination therapy, letrozole and clopidogrel were selected as case studies. Inclusion of real-world pricing data compared with applying constant prices reduced the ICER in a single-cohort setting up to 43%. In the multicohort analyses, further reductions of the ICERs were observed of up to 113%. The ICERs were sensitive to the period of drug usage relative to the models' time horizons, the relative proportions of drug costs in the overall treatment costs, and timing of LOE compared with the cost year of the original analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming dynamic drug prices may lead to more representative ICER estimates. Future CEAs for drugs could account for predicted and disaggregated life cycle price developments based on retrospective data.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions With Behavioral Support: A Study Based on the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) Model

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have compared cost-effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) that include behavioral support, considering smoking-related diseases. Therefore, we compare the cost-effectiveness of SCIs with behavioral support in South Korea using the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) model.

AIMS AND METHODS

We used the BENESCO model to estimate the cost and utility of the SCIs with behavioral support, including pharmacist counseling with nicotine replacement therapy (pharmacist+NRT), expert counseling with NRT (expert+NRT), and expert counseling with varenicline (expert+varenicline). The target population was adult smokers who wanted to cease smoking within 1 month. We applied transitional probabilities and epidemiological data from the literature. Medical costs and utilities were calculated using claims and national survey data, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within the threshold (17 926 USD per quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The model cohort included 1 219 390 male and 298 511 female smokers. The pharmacist+NRT group had 32 842 more QALYs gained and 26 689 958 USD less expended than the expert+NRT group. The ICER for the expert+varenicline group versus the pharmacist+NRT and expert+NRT groups was 27 247 and 4074 USD per QALY, respectively. The robustness of the results was confirmed by sensitivity analyses, except for the discount rate and cost of the expert+varenicline group.

CONCLUSIONS

In Korea, pharmacist counseling with NRT showed higher QALY gains and lower costs than expert counseling with NRT. Expert counseling with varenicline was more effective for smoking cessation and more cost-effective than expert counseling with NRT but was not cost-effective compared with pharmacist counseling with NRT.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides evidence for decision-making on smoking cessation programs by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of SCIs. Furthermore, we attempted to use the BENESCO model to compare and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCIs with behavioral support. It is meaningful because this study showed the availability of using the BENESCO model in the future cost-effectiveness analysis of various SCIs.

A health economic guide to market access of biosimilars

Introduction: Little is known about market access to biosimilars from a health economic perspective, except for studies that compute the budget impact of biosimilar use. Areas covered: This comprehensive health economic guide to the market access of biosimilars focuses on the role of biosimilars in pharmaceutical innovation and competition, the objective of biopharmaceutical policy, the budget impact of biosimilars, and the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy in the presence of biosimilars. Expert opinion: We argue that the objective of biopharmaceutical policy in a health system should be to create a competitive and sustainable market for off-patent reference biologics, biosimilars, and next-generation biologics that makes biologic therapy available to patients at the lowest cost. Market access of biosimilars can contribute to this objective as a result of the lower price of biosimilars and price competition with alternative therapies. The resulting improvement in the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy needs to be accounted for by revisiting reimbursement decisions and conditions. When examining the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy following patent expiry, stakeholders need to consider residual uncertainties at the time of biosimilar marketing authorization, the nocebo effect, market entry of a second-generation reference biologic with a different administration form than the biosimilar, and value-added services.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib compared with adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis; Iranian experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Tofacitinib (TFC) in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not responded well to methotrexate from the Iranian payer's perspective.

METHODS

An individual microsimulation Markov model was developed to compare TFC with etanercept (ETN) and Adalimumab (ADA) over a life-time horizon. Treatment efficacy was estimated based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response improvement criteria in 6 months. Changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of QALYs. Direct medical costs were taken from national databases. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated that TFC was cost-effective in both scenarios. Although TFC was associated with lower QALYs than ETN (6.664 versus 6.876), it was also associated with lower costs over a life-time horizon ($42,565.04 versus $58,696.29). Additionally, TFC was found to be the dominant strategy with a lower cost ($50,299.91 versus $51,550.29) and higher QALYs gained (6.900 versus 6.687) compared to ADA.

CONCLUSION

TFC was found to be cost-effective in patients with severe RA who do not respond well to methotrexate compared to ADA, ETN in Iran.

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.

Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Biological Treatment Sequences for Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Previously Treated with Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review (SLR) had two objectives: to analyse published economic evaluations of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously treated with DMARDs and to assess the quality of those that included sequences of treatments.

METHODS

We performed an SLR on PubMed, Central, Cochrane, and French databases from January 2000 to December 2018. The search focused on cost-effectiveness/utility/benefit analyses. We extracted data on treatment sequences, outcomes (e.g. quality-adjusted life year) and choices of economic evaluation methods (e.g. model type, type of analysis, and method of utility estimation). We analysed the improvement of methods by comparing two sub-periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2018). The quality of reporting and the quality of the methods were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and a set of eight key aspects for a reference case for economic evaluation of bDMARDs based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) and Drummond checklists. Data extraction and study assessment were performed independently by two health economists.

RESULTS

From the 824 records identified in the initial search, 51 publications were selected. Of these, 31 included sequences. Individual models such as discrete-event simulations were used in over two-fifths (22/51, 43%) of the selected studies. Few studies (7/51, 14%) used utility scores based on generic instruments (e.g. EQ-5D). Estimation of hospitalization costs was described in only approximately one-third of studies (19/51). Loss of quality of life (QoL) related to adverse events such as tuberculosis and pneumonia was included in one-tenth (5/51, 10%) of the studies. It was difficult to compare the results of the economic evaluations (i.e. incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) due to the high heterogeneity of studies in terms of disease stage, data sources, inputs, and methods of health outcome assessment used. For identified studies including sequences, the CHEERS assessment of reporting quality showed insufficient reporting of uncertainty analyses and utility weights in more than a third of the studies (11/31, 35%; 9/25, 36%). An in-depth assessment of the quality of the studies revealed that only seven, mostly conducted during the sub-period 2010-2018, addressed the majority of methodological quality assessment issues such as the simulation of patient sequence pathways, the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of comparative effectiveness, the choice of treatment sequence, and rules for switching.

CONCLUSION

Our SLR identified a lack of high-quality evaluations assessing bDMARD sequences, although some improvements were made in the reporting and modelling of patients' pathways in studies published after 2010. In order to improve economic evaluations of RA, clear health technology assessment guidance on RA health-related QoL instruments must be provided, and data including long-term disease progression must be made available.

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.

DMARD use is associated with a higher risk of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A propensity score-matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exhibit an increased risk of dementia. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are commonly used to slow RA progression, but studies investigating the relationship between DMARDs and dementia in patients with RA are lacking. We investigated the relationship between DMARDs and dementia in patients with RA.

METHODS

Using the National Health Insurance Research Database, patients aged ≥20years, who were newly diagnosed with RA between 2000 and 2011 were identified. Patients with RA who had dementia comprised the dementia group, and patients with RA who did not have dementia comprised the control group. The groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio by the propensity score. DMARDs were categorized into conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Logistic regression models were used to calculate the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the association between DMARD use and the risk of dementia in patients with RA.

RESULTS

A total of 957 patients with RA and dementia, and 957 patients with RA but not dementia, were enrolled. The risk of dementia was determined to be 1.63-fold higher in patients with RA with csDMARD use than in those without csDMARD use (95% CI=1.33-2.00). No significant risk of dementia was observed in patients with RA who used bDMARDs compared with their counterparts. However, patients with RA who used hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine exhibited significant risks of dementia, irrespective of cumulative exposure days.

CONCLUSION

Patients with RA who used csDMARDs exhibit significant association with dementia.