Comparing cost-utility of DMARDs in autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis patients

Autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis: still a challenge for the rheumatologist

Increased research over the past 30 years has greatly improved the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical aspects of autoantibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in improved management and outcomes. In contrast, the subset of rheumatoid arthritis that does not have autoantibodies (such as rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein autoantibodies) remains less well defined in its pathogenic mechanisms. Autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis continues to pose diagnostic challenges, might respond differently to therapies, and appears to be burdened with different comorbidities and outcomes. The clear separation of rheumatoid arthritis according to serotypes is still a subject of uncertainty and controversy, and studies specifically focused on comparing rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis-like arthritides that do not have autoantibodies remain scarce. The purpose of this Review is to summarise the peculiarities that make autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis different from its autoantibody-positive counterpart, with the aim of generating debate and stimulating further research on this challenging condition.

Is symptom duration before DMARD therapy a determinant of direct and indirect costs in DMARD-naïve RA patients? A systematic review

Objective

Early treatment of RA improves clinical outcomes; however, the impact on health economic outcomes is unclear. This review sought to investigate the relationship between symptom/disease duration and resource utilization/costs and the responsiveness of costs following RA diagnosis.

Methods

A systematic search was performed on Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Medline. Studies were eligible if patients were DMARD-naïve and fulfilled 1987 ACR or 2010 ACR/EULAR RA classification criteria. Studies had to report symptom/disease duration and resource utilization or direct/indirect costs as health economic outcomes. The relationships between symptom/disease duration and costs were explored.

Results

Three hundred and fifty-seven records were identified in a systematic search; nine were eligible for analysis. The mean/median of symptom/disease duration in studies ranged between 25 days and 6 years. Annual direct costs of RA following diagnosis showed a U-shaped distribution in two studies. Longer symptom duration before starting a DMARD (>180 days) was associated with lower health-care utilization in the first year of RA diagnosis in one study. Annual direct and indirect costs 6 months before RA diagnosis were higher in patients with shorter symptom duration (<6 months) in one study. Given the clinical and methodological heterogeneities, the association between symptom/disease duration and costs after diagnosis was not computed.

Conclusion

The association between symptom/disease duration at the time of DMARD initiation and resource utilization/cost in patients with RA remains unclear. Health economic modelling with clearly defined symptom duration, resource utilization and long-term productivity is vital to address this evidence gap.

Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: a review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China

Introduction

Productivity loss may contribute to a large proportion of costs of health conditions in an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, but there is currently a lack of methodological consensus on how productivity loss should be measured and valued. Despite the research progress surrounding this issue in other countries, it has been rarely discussed in China.

Methods

We reviewed the official guidelines on economic evaluations in different countries and regions and screened the literature to summarise the extent to which productivity loss was incorporated in economic evaluations and the underlying methodological challenges.

Results

A total of 48 guidelines from 46 countries/regions were included. Although 32 (67%) guidelines recommend excluding productivity loss in the base case analysis, 23 (48%) guidelines recommend including productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses. Through a review of systematic reviews and the economic evaluation studies included in these reviews, we found that the average probability of incorporating productivity loss in an economic evaluation was 10.2%. Among the economic evaluations (n=478) that explicitly considered productivity loss, most (n=455) considered losses from paid work, while only a few studies (n=23) considered unpaid work losses. Recognising the existing methodological challenges and the specific context of China, we proposed a practical research agenda and a disease list for progress on this topic, including the development of the disease list comprehensively consisting of health conditions where the productivity loss should be incorporated into economic evaluations.

Conclusion

An increasing number of guidelines recommend the inclusion of productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses of economic evaluation. We optimistically expect that more Chinese researchers notice the importance of incorporating productivity loss in economic evaluations and anticipate guidelines that may be suitable for Chinese practitioners and decision-makers that facilitate the advancement of research on productivity loss measurement and valuation.