Economic evaluation of tocilizumab monotherapy compared to adalimumab monotherapy in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis

The impact of COVID-19 and other factors on the usage status of the biologic drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: A study from Vietnam

OBJECTIVES

To describe the status of using biological Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and related factors. In addition, the study determined the impact of COVID-19 on the usage of bDMARDs.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study and included 219 RA patients over 18 years old. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test (p<0.05) were used to estimate the retention time and compare between different times. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the factors affecting the retention time of biological drugs (p<0.05).

RESULTS

Out of 1967 courses of treatment, there were 149 (7.6%) drug discontinuations, 760 (38.6%) doses extensions and 64 (3.3%) drug switch. Moderate disease level and choosing tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors initially were associated with retention time of COVID-19. Drug discontinuations and dose extensions increased after COVID-19 emergence. The retention time during COVID-19 was significantly different from that of pre-COVID-19. Gender, type of first-used bDMARD, conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and corticoid usage status, disease activity levels were associated with retention time.

CONCLUSION

The presence of COVID-19 has a significant effect on usage status of the biologic drug. Further longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the relationship between COVID-19 and drug usage as well as related factors.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Three approaches with a cohort simulation and real-world data

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We conducted three analyses: a lifetime analysis with a cohort model (Study A) and two short-term analyses (Studies B and C). Study A evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from costs of standard treatments. Study B evaluated yearly costs per person achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70), and Study C evaluated costs per person achieving previously defined claims-based effectiveness (equivalent to 28-joint Disease Activity Score ≤ 3.2). The proportion of ACR responders to the drugs of interest were determined by mixed treatment comparisons. Studies B and C estimated costs using a claims database.

RESULTS

In Study A, ICERs of all b/tsDMARDs were lower than 5.0 million Japanese yen (JPY) per QALY. In Study B, yearly costs per person with ACR50 response were lower for subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC; 1.9 million JPY) and SC abatacept (2.3 million JPY). In Study C, costs per person were lower for TCZ-SC (1.3 million JPY) and intravenous TCZ (1.6 million JPY) and effectiveness rates were higher for intravenous TCZ (45.3%) and infliximab (43.0%).

CONCLUSION

The b/tsDMARDs with lower prices showed higher cost-effectiveness.

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.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis have a heavy financial burden. The cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib to the current treatment sequence for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who have inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs-IR) in China remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib into the current treatment sequence in China for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who have csDMARDs-IR.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to compare treatment sequences with and without first-line tofacitinib for patients with rheumatoid arthritis with csDMARDs-IR. The treatment sequence without tofacitinib included adalimumab, etanercept, recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor-Fc fusion protein, infliximab, and tocilizumab. Costs were derived from publicly available sources. Clinical trials, network meta-analysis, and real-world data were used to generate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), transition probabilities, and the incidence of adverse events. Mortality probabilities were estimated from rheumatoid arthritis-based, Chinese all-cause mortality data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of adding tofacitinib as second- and third-line treatment options was evaluated in our analyses. Costs and effects were discounted at 5% per anum.

RESULTS

Compared to the current treatment sequence, adding tofacitinib as first-line treatment led to a cost-saving of $US880.11 (2018 values) and incremental QALYs of 1.34. Sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust. Adding tofacitinib at second-line therapy was also a cost-saving option with a cost saving of $US653.65 and incremental QALYs of 1.34, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding tofacitinib at third-line therapy was $US5588.14 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the WHO-recommended ICER acceptability threshold of ≤ 1-time per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), our analysis suggests that the introduction of tofacitinib into the current treatment sequence for moderate-to-severe RA patients with csDMARDs-IR in China was a cost saving option as first- and second-line treatment, and cost-effective as a third-line treatment option. Of note, use of tofacitinib as first- and second-line treatment post-csDMARDs-IR appeared to be cost saving.

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.

The Effect of Dose Escalation on the Cost-Effectiveness of Etanercept and Adalimumab with Methotrexate Among Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occasionally increase their doses of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, especially the monoclonal antibody origin drugs such as adalimumab and infliximab, after inadequate response to the initial dose. Previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various sequences of treatment for RA in the United States but have not considered the effect of dose escalation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of etanercept and adalimumab by incorporating the effect of dose escalation in moderate to severe RA patients.

METHODS

We adapted the open-source Innovation and Value Initiative - Rheumatoid Arthritis model, version 1.0 to separately simulate the magnitude and time to dose escalation among RA patients taking adalimumab plus methotrexate or etanercept plus methotrexate from a societal perspective and lifetime horizon. An important assumption in the model was that dose escalation would increase treatment costs through its effect on the number of doses but would have no effect on effectiveness. We estimated the dose escalation parameters using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases. We fit competing parametric survival models to model time to dose escalation and used model diagnostics to compare the fit of the competing models. We measured the magnitude of dose escalation as the percentage increase in the number of doses conditional on dose escalation. Finally, we used the parameterized model to simulate treatment sequences beginning with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, etanercept) followed by nonbiologic treatment.

RESULTS

In baseline models without dose escalation, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of the etanercept treatment sequence relative to the adalimumab treatment sequence was $85,593. Incorporating dose escalation increased treatment costs for each sequence, but costs increased more with adalimumab, lowering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to $9,001. At willingness-to-pay levels of $100,000, the etanercept sequence was more cost-effective compared with the adalimumab sequence, with probability 0.55 and 0.85 in models with and without dose escalation, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose escalation has important effects on cost-effectiveness and should be considered when comparing biologic medications for the treatment of RA.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was contributed by Amgen. When this work was conducted, Incerti and Jansen were employees of Precision Health Economics, which received financial support from Amgen. Maksabedian Hernandez, Collier, Gharaibeh, and Stolshek were employees and stockholders of Amgen, and Tkacz and Moore-Schiltz were employees of IBM Watson Health, which received financial support from Amgen. Some of the results of this work were previously presented as a poster at the 2019 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting, March 25-28, 2019, in San Diego, CA.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

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.

A modeling framework for the economic evaluation of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials.Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions.Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences.Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

Comparative Cost per Response for 4 Clinical Endpoints with Tocilizumab Monotherapy vs Adalimumab Monotherapy in a Head-to-Head Randomized Double-Blind Superiority Trial (ADACTA) in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The cost-effectiveness of different biologic therapies can be an important component in guiding treatment decisions for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to compare drug and adverse event costs and cost per successful clinical response with tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy vs adalimumab (ADA) monotherapy in patients with RA in a phase 4 clinical trial.

Methods

Patients received either TCZ intravenously every 4 weeks or ADA subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Drug and administration costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, respectively. Outcomes included patient-level drug costs, cost of hospitalization due to adverse events, and cost per response. Cost per response was calculated by dividing the mean drug plus administration cost by the proportion of patients achieving Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) < 2.6 (remission) or 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement in response per the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20/50/70). Hospitalization costs were calculated using the daily hospital cost and number of hospital days.

Results

Among the 163 patients treated with TCZ and 162 patients treated with ADA, mean total drug and administration costs per patient over 24 weeks were $18,290.60 and $25,623.10, respectively. Mean drug and administration costs per each clinical response achieved were lower with TCZ than with ADA (DAS28 < 2.6: $45,868 vs $244,174; ACR20: $28,127 vs $51,887; ACR50: $38,720 vs $92,244; ACR70: $56,253 vs $143,136). The total hospital days were 32 days with TCZ and 43 days with ADA; mean hospital costs per patient were $484.50 with TCZ and $651.10 with ADA.

Conclusion

In this comparative assessment, the cost to achieve all 4 clinical endpoints was lower for patients receiving TCZ than for those receiving ADA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of baricitinib versus adalimumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

Background: Baricitinib is an oral janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is approved in Europe for use in adults with moderately-to-severely active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy. To date, no economic evaluations have assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib in the Spanish setting. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus adalimumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA in the Spanish setting. Methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed in Microsoft Excel. Costs and outcomes were estimated over a lifetime horizon using the Spanish national payer perspective. The model compared baricitinib 4 mg once daily in combination with methotrexate with adalimumab 40 mg every other week in combination with methotrexate. Effectiveness and physical function were captured using the American College of Rheumatology criteria and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, input values of which were derived from a phase 3, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial (RA-BEAM; funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01710358). Costs are presented in Euros, 2018 values. Results: In the base case analysis, baricitinib was associated with a quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.09 years over a lifetime horizon, at an incremental cost of -€558 versus adalimumab. Results of various scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis generally were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that baricitinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared to adalimumab for Spanish patients with moderately-to-severely active RA and a previous inadequate response or intolerance to csDMARD therapy.

A Flexible Open-Source Decision Model for Value Assessment of Biologic Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The nature of model-based cost-effectiveness analysis can lead to disputes in the scientific community. We propose an iterative and collaborative approach to model development by presenting a flexible open-source simulation model for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), accessible to both technical and non-technical end-users.

METHODS

The RA model is a discrete-time individual patient simulation with 6-month cycles. Model input parameters were estimated based on currently available evidence and treatment effects were obtained with Bayesian network meta-analysis techniques. The model contains 384 possible model structures informed by previously published models. The model consists of the following components: (i) modifiable R and C++ source code available in a GitHub repository; (ii) an R package to run the model for custom analyses; (iii) detailed model documentation; (iv) a web-based user interface for full control over the model without the need to be well-versed in the programming languages; and (v) a general audience web-application allowing those who are not experts in modeling or health economics to interact with the model and contribute to value assessment discussions.

RESULTS

A primary function of the initial version of RA model is to help understand and quantify the impact of parameter uncertainty (with probabilistic sensitivity analysis), structural uncertainty (with multiple competing model structures), the decision framework (cost-effectiveness analysis or multi-criteria decision analysis), and perspective (healthcare or limited societal) on estimates of value.

CONCLUSION

In order for a decision model to remain relevant over time it needs to evolve along with its supporting body of clinical evidence and scientific insight. Multiple clinical and methodological experts can modify or contribute to the RA model at any time due to its open-source nature.

Assessing the Value of Sarilumab Monotherapy for Adults with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with a societal burden greater than $39 billion annually. Novel treatments, known as targeted immune modulators (TIMs), are expensive but effective, producing improvements in response rates compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). Sarilumab, a TIM approved in 2017, shows superior improvements compared with cDMARDs and produced significantly greater likelihood of achieving response and improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index than adalimumab monotherapy. Although sarilumab monotherapy has shown improvements over cDMARDs and the TIM market leader adalimumab, treatment with sarilumab is costly, with an annual wholesale acquisition cost of $39,000.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of starting treatment with sarilumab monotherapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs.

METHODS

A sequential treatment cohort model followed a hypothetical cohort from initiation of sarilumab monotherapy until death. The model allowed patients to switch therapies up to 3 times due to effectiveness or adverse events. The first switch was to a TIM within the same treatment category; the second switch was to a TIM within a different treatment category; and the third switch was to a cDMARD. Sarilumab monotherapy was compared with a cDMARD (methotrexate) and the TIM market leader (adalimumab monotherapy). Key risk and benefit evidence came from clinical studies and network meta-analyses of data on radiographic progression and response. We used a lifetime time horizon and the U.S. health sector payer perspective assuming therapy net pricing. We also incorporated loss of productivity to reflect a restricted societal perspective.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime time horizon, a treatment pathway starting with sarilumab resulted in 17.16 life-years and 13.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment pathways starting with the cDMARD resulted in 16.54 life-years and 11.77 QALYs; treatment pathways starting with adalimumab resulted in 17.05 life-years and 13.35 QALYs. Total costs for sarilumab ($492,000 for payer perspective, $634,000 for societal perspective) were less than total costs for adalimumab ($536,000 for payer perspective, $689,000 for societal perspective) but higher than total costs for the cDMARD ($63,000 for payer perspective, $272,000 for societal perspective). When compared with cDMARD therapy, sarilumab resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $227,000 per QALY gained from the payer perspective and $191,000 per QALYs gained from the societal perspective. When compared with adalimumab, sarilumab was dominant from both perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarilumab resulted in better health outcomes than conventional therapy alone. However, its additional cost with assumed class-level net prices led to cost-effectiveness estimates above commonly cited thresholds. When compared with the market leader, sarilumab achieved favorable value. This evaluation informs stakeholders of the value of sarilumab and its alternatives to promote high value practices in health care.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this research was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Kumar, Synnott, and Agboola are employees of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. The organization's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Omeda Rx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Humana. This work is an extension of an analysis presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council on March 24, 2017, where the authors received public feedback on the analysis, results, and effect of a value assessment for targeted immune modulators. At the time of presentation, sarilumab was still an investigational product; therefore, a price was not known, so cost-effectiveness estimates were not generated. Since the presentation of that material, additional evidence for sarilumab has become available. The additional evidence has been incorporated into this analysis to present cost-effectiveness estimates for sarilumab.

Heart rate variability testing: could it change spending for rheumatoid arthritis patients in the United States? An exploratory economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Autonomic nervous system (ANS) testing with heart rate variability (HRV) has been shown in early research to predict 52-week outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). HRV testing could be combined with putative ANS biologic pathways to improve treatment response for RA patients. This study explored potential costs and health outcomes of introducing HRV testing into RA treatment, without and with ANS optimization.

METHODS

A decision tree exploratory economic model compared HRV testing to standard care in moderate-to-severe biologic-eligible patients over a 10-year time horizon. HRV data was derived from an observational study of RA patients (n = 33). Patients were stratified into treatment groups based on HRV test scores indicating "low probability of response" and "moderate to high probability of response". This study explored adding ANS optimization based on HRV score followed by clinically-appropriate treatment. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the US population were estimated.

RESULTS

HRV testing in biologic-eligible patients decreased non-effective biologic use, reducing US healthcare costs by $34.6 billion over 10 years with QALYs unchanged. When combined with ANS optimization in biologic-eligible patients, HRV testing could increase costs by $3.6 billion over 10 years but save over 350,000 QALYs. Among all RA patients, HRV testing with ANS optimization could save over $8 billion and over 100,000 QALYs over 10 years, depending on the positive predictive value (PPV) of the HRV test.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential economic impact of introducing HRV testing and ANS optimization into RA treatment appears substantial and cost-effective based on the exploratory analysis. Additional rigorous studies are warranted in larger patient samples to better inform decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness of sequenced treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted immune modulators

AIMS

To determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase/STAT pathway inhibitors (collectively referred to as bDMARDs) vs conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) from the US societal perspective for treatment of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to cDMARDs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An individual patient simulation model was developed that assesses the impact of treatments on disease based on clinical trial data and real-world evidence. Treatment strategies included sequences starting with etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, or abatacept. Each of these treatment strategies was compared with cDMARDs. Incremental cost, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment sequence relative to cDMARDs. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was determined using a US willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY.

RESULTS

For the base-case scenario, bDMARD treatment sequences were associated with greater treatment benefit (i.e. more QALYs), lower lost productivity costs, and greater treatment-related costs than cDMARDs. The expected ICERs for bDMARD sequences ranged from ∼$126,000 to $140,000 per QALY gained, which is below the US-specific WTP. Alternative scenarios examining the effects of homogeneous patients, dose increases, increased costs of hospitalization for severely physically impaired patients, and a lower baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index score resulted in similar ICERs.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARD treatment sequences are cost-effective from a US societal perspective.

Efficacy and Treatment Costs of Monotherapy with bDMARDs in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients Intolerant to or Inappropriate to Continue Treatment with Methotrexate

INTRODUCTION

Only limited information is available on cost efficacy of the various biological agents used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis with intolerance or for whom it would be inappropriate to continue treatment with conventional agents. We estimated the efficacy and treatment costs of monotherapy with biological agents in the treatment of this group of patients.

METHODS

Data from two previous meta-analyses in the treatment of patients who are intolerant to methotrexate (MTX), or for whom it would be inappropriate to continue treatment with MTX was used. Pharmacoeconomic comparison between biological agents was carried out to estimate the respective cost for the number needed to treat (NNT) compared to placebo using both American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. The analysis involved the four agents approved in Italy: adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), certolizumab pegol (CTZ), and tocilizumab (TCZ). A six-month period was considered sufficient to understand the most important differences in efficacy and treatment costs. Direct medical costs, including pharmacological therapy, administration and monitoring were considered.

RESULTS

Using both ACR and EULAR criteria, TCZ (intravenous [iv]/subcutaneous [sc]) had a lower NNT than the other agents. The difference in NNT observed for ETN was more pronounced with EULAR criteria, whereas in the comparison with ADA, the most sensitive differences were observed with ACR criteria. ETN had the lowest treatment cost (€6402.19), followed by ADA (€6698.84), TCZ sc (€6887.61), and TCZ iv (€7130.83). TCZ sc had the lowest cost for NNT with both ACR and EULAR criteria. The differences compared to ETN and ADA were significant and related with the level of efficacy. Sensitivity analysis confirmed these results.

CONCLUSION

TCZ is a cost-effective therapeutic option compared to other tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (ADA, ETA, CTZ) as first-line monotherapy for patients who are intolerant to MTX, or for whom it is inappropriate to continue treatment with MTX.

FUNDING

Roche SpA.

Treatment Patterns, Direct Cost of Biologics, and Direct Medical Costs for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Real-world Analysis of Nationwide Japanese Claims Data

PURPOSE

The aims of this article were to characterize the patterns of treating rheumatoid arthritis with biologics and to evaluate costs using claims data from the Japan Medical Data Center Co, Ltd.

METHODS

Patients aged 16 to <75 years who were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and prescribed adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), infliximab (IFX), tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept, certolizumab, or golimumab between January 2005 and August 2014 were included. For the cross-sectional analysis, the annual costs of ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ from 2009 to 2013 were assessed. For the longitudinal analysis, patients prescribed these biologics as the first line of biologics, from January 2005 to August 2014, were included. The cost of biologic treatment over 1, 2, and 3 years (including prescription of subsequent biologics) and direct medical costs (including treatment of comorbidities) were compared between groups. Discontinuation and switching rates in each group were estimated, and multivariate analyses were conducted to estimate an adjusted hazard ratio of discontinuation and switching rates among each group. The dose of each first-line biologic treatment until discontinuation was analyzed to calculate relative dose intensity.

FINDINGS

The cross-sectional annual biologic costs of ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ were ~$8000 (2009 and 2013), $13,000 (2009) and $15,000 (2013), $10,000 (2009) and $11,000 (2013), and $9000 (2009) and $8000 (2013), respectively. In longitudinal analyses (n = 764), 276 (36%) initiated ETN; 242 (32%), IFX; 147 (19%), ADA; and 99 (13%), TCZ. The 1-year cumulative annual biologic costs per patient from the initial prescription of ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ as the first-line biologic treatment were ~$11,000, $19,000, $16,000, and $12,000. The corresponding direct medical costs over 1 year from the initial prescription were ~$17,000, $26,000, $22,000, and $22,000. Costs remained greatest in the IFX-initiation group at year 3. The discontinuation rates at 36 months with ETN, IFX, ADA, and TCZ were 37.7%, 52.3%, 55.8%, and 39.5%; the switching rates were 12.5%, 27.1%, 31.0%, and 16.7%. The mean (95% CI) relative dose intensities until discontinuation of ETN 25 mg, ETN 50 mg, IFX, ADA, and TCZ were 1.02 (0.95-1.10), 0.82 (0.79-0.85), 1.16 (1.12-1.20), 0.95 (0.90-0.99), and 0.96 (0.93-1.00).

IMPLICATIONS

Considered costs and discontinuation and switching event rates were lowest with ETN versus IFX, ADA, or TCZ used as the first-line biologic. Despite limitations, these findings imply clinical cost-reductive benefits of ETN as the first-line biologic treatment option for rheumatoid arthritis in Japan.

Cost-utility analysis of tocilizumab monotherapy in first line versus standard of care for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Greece

The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding tocilizumab (TCZ) first line to a treatment sequence for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), who had an inadequate response to one or more traditional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and are intolerant to methotrexate (MTX), or in whom continued treatment with MTX is considered inappropriate. An individual simulation model was applied to project lifetime costs and outcomes for 10,000 patients from a payer's perspective. The analysis compared the standard treatment pathway (STP) with a similar pathway, where treatment was initiated with TCZ. QALYs were used as primary efficacy outcomes. Efficacy data were obtained from the ADACTA trial and a network meta-analysis. Clinical practice standards were derived from an expert panel of Greek rheumatologists. Results indicate that a treatment sequence starting with TCZ yields 1.17 more QALYs (9.38 vs. 8.21) at an additional cost of €3,744 (€119,840 vs. €86,096) compared with the STP. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €28,837/QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirms robustness of these findings as consistently below a threshold of €45,000. The results of the analysis suggest that TCZ, when used as a first-line biologic monotherapy, can be a cost-effective treatment option for the management of active RA in patients in need of biologic monotherapy.