Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etanercept 25 mg Maintenance Therapy After Treatment with Etanercept 50 mg for Moderate Rheumatoid Arthritis in the PRESERVE Trial in Japan

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.

Rheumatoid arthritis: advances in treatment strategies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterised by severe joint and bone damage due to heightened autoimmune response at the articular sites. Worldwide annual incidence and prevalence rate of RA is 3 cases per 10,000 population and 1%, respectively. Several genetic and environmental (microbiota, smoking, infectious agents) factors contribute to its pathogenesis. Although convention treatment strategies, predominantly Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and Glucocorticoids (GC), are unchanged as the primary line of treatment; novel strategies consisting of biological DMARDs, are being developed and explored. Personalized approaches using biologicals targetspecific pathways associated with disease progression. However, considering the economic burden and side-effects associated with these, there is an unmet need on strategies for early stratification of the inadequate responders with cDMARDs. As RA is a complex disease with a variable remission rate, it is important not only to evaluate the current status of drugs in clinical practice but also those with the potential of personalised therapeutics. Here, we provide comprehensive data on the treatment strategies in RA, including studies exploring various combination strategies in clinical trials. Our systematic analysis of current literature found that conventional DMARDs along with glucocorticoid may be best suited for early RA cases and a combination of conventional and targeted DMARDs could be effective for treating seronegative patients with moderate to high RA activity. Clinical trials with insufficient responders to Methotrexate suggest that adding biologicals may help in such cases. However, certain adverse events associated with the current therapy advocate exploring novel therapeutic approaches such as gene therapy, mesenchymal stem cell therapy in future.