Cost effectiveness of etanercept (Enbrel) in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis based on the TEMPO trial

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-utility analysis of treatment options after initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued initial treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), 2 approaches are commonly used: cycling to another TNFi or switching to a drug with another mechanism of action. Currently, there is no consensus on which approach to use first. A report from the IBM MarketScan Research administrative claims database showed adalimumab (cycling strategy) and abatacept (switching strategy) were more commonly prescribed after the first TNFi discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of adalimumab versus abatacept in patients with RA whose initial TNFi therapy failed. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-utility microsimulation state-transition model was used. Our target population was commercially insured adults with RA, the time horizon was 10 years, and we used a payer perspective. Patients not responding to adalimumab or abatacept were moved to the next drug in a sequence of 3 and, finally, to conventional synthetic therapy. Incremental cost-utility ratios (2016 USD per quality-adjusted-life-year gained [QALY)] were calculated. Utilities were derived from a formula based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and age-adjusted comorbidity score. RESULTS: Switching to abatacept after the first TNFi showed an incremental cost of just more than $11,300 over 10 years and achieved a QALY benefit of 0.16 compared with adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68,950 per QALY. Scenario analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range of $44,573 per QALY to $148,558 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that switching to abatacept after TNFi therapy failure had an 80.6% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to abatacept is a cost-effective strategy for patients with RA whose discontinue initial therapy with TNFi. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this project was provided by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award (principal investigator: Maria A. Lopez-Olivo). Karpes Matusevich's work was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Research Award from the University of Texas, School of Public Health Office of Research. Lal reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (employed by Optum). Suarez-Almazor reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Agile Therapeutics, Amag Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead). Chan, Swint, and Cantor have nothing to disclose.

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 analysis of etanercept plus methotrexate vs triple therapy in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of etanercept plus methotrexate (ETN+MTX) compared to triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

The 134 Chinese RA patients who were about to initiate ETN+MTX or triple DMARDs therapy based on treat-to-target strategy were consecutively recruited and categorized into ETN+MTX group (N = 49) or triple DMARDs group (N = 85). Treatment efficacy was assessed at month 3 (M3)/M6/M9/M12 after initiation of treatment. Also, 1-year treatment cost was evaluated, and cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

RA patients in ETN+MTX group exhibited similar disease activity and quality of life at each time point while elevated 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) change (M0-M12) and low disease activity rate compared with triple DMARDs group. For 1-year treatment cost, ETN+MTX required increased drug cost, decreased other medical cost, and finally elevated total cost compared with triple DMARDs. Meanwhile, compared to triple DMARDs, ETN+MTX produced an additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.015, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥2,939,506.7 per QALY that was 53.1 folds of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. More interestingly, sensitivity analysis revealed that the ETN price had to be reduced at least by 71.3% before ETN+MTX became cost-effectiveness compared to triple DMARDs.

CONCLUSION

ETN+MTX is less cost-effective in treating Chinese RA patients compared with triple DMARDs.

Quantitative Predictive Modelling Approaches to Understanding Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Brief Review

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that is a major public health challenge. The disease is characterised by inflammation of synovial joints and cartilage erosion, which lead to chronic pain, poor life quality and, in some cases, mortality. Understanding the biological mechanisms behind the progression of the disease, as well as developing new methods for quantitative predictions of disease progression in the presence/absence of various therapies is important for the success of therapeutic approaches. The aim of this study is to review various quantitative predictive modelling approaches for understanding rheumatoid arthritis. To this end, we start by briefly discussing the biology of this disease and some current treatment approaches, as well as emphasising some of the open problems in the field. Then, we review various mathematical mechanistic models derived to address some of these open problems. We discuss models that investigate the biological mechanisms behind the progression of the disease, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models for various drug therapies. Furthermore, we highlight models aimed at optimising the costs of the treatments while taking into consideration the evolution of the disease and potential complications.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etanercept in Combination with Methotrexate for Rheumatoid Arthritis - Markov Model Based on Data from Serbia

Biological therapeutic strategies have shown positive benefits for chronic and progressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical and radiological outcomes. Despite these results, the use of biological drugs in the treatment of RA is limited by high costs. The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of etanercept in combination with methotrexate and methotrexate alone in patients with RA in the socioeconomic environment of a Balkan country.

We conducted a cost-effectiveness study using a Markov model from a societal perspective with a time horizon of 480 months. The cycle duration was set to one month. The basic transition probabilities and data on therapeutic efficacy were estimated from the available literature, while costs were calculated using the medical documents of patients with RA treated at the Clinical Center Kragujevac.

Our results indicated that treatment of patients with RA using methotrexate alone is more cost effective, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 1.446.640,78 RSD/QALY, than treatment with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 5.882.714,57 RSD/QALY.

The use of etanercept to treat RA is not cost effective in the socioeconomic environment of Serbia. The cost-effectiveness ratio of biological drugs would be more favourable if special strategies for the pricing policy of biological drugs were established on the basis of local pharmacoeconomic studies.

Best cost-effectiveness and worker productivity with initial triple DMARD therapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: cost-utility analysis of the tREACH trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate direct and indirect costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for different initial treatment strategies in very early RA.

METHODS

The 1-year data of the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort trial were used. Patients with a high probability (>70%) according to their likelihood of progressing to persistent arthritis, based on the prediction model of Visser, were randomized into one of following initial treatment strategies: (A) initial triple DMARD therapy (iTDT) with glucocorticoids (GCs) intramuscular (n = 91); (B) iTDT with an oral GC tapering scheme (n = 93); and (C) initial MTX monotherapy (iMM) with GCs similar to B (n = 97). Data on QALYs, measured with the Dutch EuroQol, and direct and indirect cost were used. Direct costs are costs of treatment and medical consumption, whereas indirect costs are costs due to loss of productivity.

RESULTS

Average QALYs (sd) for A, B and C were, respectively, 0.75 (0.12), 0.75 (0.10) and 0.73 (0.13) for Dutch EuroQol. Highest total costs per QALY (sd) were, respectively, €12748 (€18767), €10 380 (€15 608) and €17 408 (€21 828) for strategy A, B and C (P = 0.012, B vs C). Direct as well as indirect costs were higher with iMM (strategy C) compared with iTDT (strategy B). Higher direct costs were due to ∼40% more biologic usage over time. Higher indirect costs, on the other hand, were caused by more long-term sickness and reduction in contract hours. iTDT was >95% cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds compared with iMM.

CONCLUSION

iTDT was more cost-effective and had better worker productivity compared with iMM.

Does disease activity add to functional disability in estimation of utility for rheumatoid arthritis patients on biologic treatment?

OBJECTIVE

Treatment in general is mostly directly aimed at disease activity, and measures such as the DAS28 might therefore present important additional information. Our aim was to develop and validate a model that uses a combination of disease activity (DAS28) and HAQs to estimate EuroQoL 5-dimension scale (EQ5D) utilities.

METHODS

Longitudinal data from a cohort study in RA patients from the Utrecht Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort study Group (Stichting Reumaonderzoek Utrecht) who started treatment with a biologic drug were used for mapping and validation. All 702 observations, including DAS28, HAQ and EQ5D assessed at the same time points, were used. The observations were randomly divided into a subset for development of the model (n = 428 observations) and a subset for validation (n = 274). A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was used to test the association of DAS28 (components) and HAQ (domains) with EQ5D. Model performance was assessed using the explained variance (R(2)) and root mean square errors. Observed and predicted utility scores were compared to check for under- or overestimation of the scores. Finally, the performance of the model was compared with published mapping models.

RESULTS

Lower DAS28 score and HAQ items dressing and grooming, arising, eating, walking and activities were associated with higher EQ5D scores. The final model had an explained variance of 0.35 and a lower root mean square error as compared with other models tested. The agreement between predicted and observed scores was fair.

CONCLUSION

HAQ components estimate EQ5D better than total HAQ. Adding DAS28 to HAQ components does not result in better utility estimations.

The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

Background and Objectives

Economic evaluations provide information to aid the optimal utilization of limited healthcare resources. Costs of biologics for Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are remarkably high, which makes these agents an important target for economic evaluations. This systematic review aims to identify existing studies examining the cost-effectiveness of biologics for RA, assess their quality and report their results systematically.

Methods

A literature search covering Medline, Scopus, Cochrane library, ACP Journal club and Web of Science was performed in March 2013. The cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of one or more available biological drugs for the treatment of RA in adults were included. Two independent investigators systematically collected information and assessed the quality of the studies. To enable the comparison of the results, all costs were converted to 2013 euro.

Results

Of the 4890 references found in the literature search, 41 CUAs were included in the current systematic review. While considering only direct costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) ranged from 39,000 to 1 273,000 €/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained in comparison to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in cDMARD naïve patients. Among patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs, biologics were associated with ICERs ranging from 12,000 to 708,000 €/QALY. Rituximab was found to be the most cost-effective alternative compared to other biologics among the patients with an insufficient response to TNFi.

Conclusions

When 35,000 €/QALY is considered as a threshold for the ICER, TNFis do not seem to be cost-effective among cDMARD naïve patients and patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs. With thresholds of 50,000 to 100,000 €/QALY biologics might be cost-effective among patients with an inadequate response to cDMARDs. Standardization of multiattribute utility instruments and a validated standard conversion method for missing utility measures would enable better comparison between CUAs.

Cost-effectiveness of tocilizumab, a humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody, versus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using real-world data from the IORRA observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world setting in Japan.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness was determined using a Markov model-based probabilistic simulation. Data from RA patients registered in the Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) cohort study between April 2007 and April 2011 were extracted using a pair-matching method: tocilizumab group (n = 104), patients who used at least 1 disease-modifying anti- rheumatic drug and in whom tocilizumab treatment was initiated; methotrexate group (n = 104), patients in whom methotrexate treatment was initiated for the first time or after an interruption of 6 or more months. Assuming a 6-month cycle length, health benefits and costs were measured over a lifetime and discounted at an annual rate of 3%.

RESULTS

Compared with methotrexate treatment, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for tocilizumab treatment were approximately 1.5- and 1.3-times higher, respectively. Incremental cost per QALY gained with tocilizumab was $49,359, which was below the assumed cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The probability of tocilizumab being cost- effective was 62.2%.

CONCLUSION

The simulation model using real-world data from Japan showed that tocilizumab (at a certain price) may improve treatment cost-effectiveness in patients with moderate-to-severe RA by enhancing quality-adjusted life expectancy.

Cost-effectiveness of TNF inhibitors vs synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Markov model study based on two longitudinal observational studies

Objective. The objective of this study was to estimate the additional costs and health benefits of adding a TNF inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to a synthetic DMARD (sDMARD), e.g. MTX, in patients with RA.

Methods. We developed the Norwegian RA model as a Markov model simulating 10 years of treatment with either TNFi plus sDMARDs (TNFi strategy) or sDMARDs alone (synthetic strategy). Patients in both strategies started in one of seven health states, based on the Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The patients could move to better or worse health states according to transition probabilities. In the TNFi strategy, patients could stay on TNFi (including switch of TNFi), or switch to non-TNFi-biologics (abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab), sDMARDs or no DMARD. In the synthetic strategy, patients remained on sDMARDs. Data from two observational studies were used for the assessment of resource use and utilities in the health states. Health benefits were evaluated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and SF-6D.

Results. The Norwegian RA model predicted that 10-year discounted health care costs totalled €124 942 (€475 266 including production losses) for the TNFi strategy and €65 584 (€436 517) for the synthetic strategy. The cost per additionally gained quality-adjusted life-year of adding a TNFi was €92 557 (€60 227 including production losses) using SF-6D and €61 285 (€39 841) using EQ-5D. Including health care costs only, the probability that TNFi treatment was cost-effective was 90% when using EQ-5D, assuming a Norwegian willingness-to-pay level of €67 300.

Conclusion. TNFi treatment for RA is cost-effective when accounting for production losses. Excluding production losses, TNFi treatment is cost-effective using EQ-5D, but not SF-6D.

The comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis update of 44 trials

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate and update the safety data from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted from 1990 to May 2013. All studies included were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis that evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab treatment. The serious adverse events and discontinuation rates were abstracted, and risk estimates were calculated by Peto odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 11,700 subjects receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and 5901 subjects receiving placebo or traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were included. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment as a group was associated with a higher risk of serious infection (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.78) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) compared with placebo and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatments. Specifically, patients taking adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab had an increased risk of serious infection (OR, 1.69, 1.98, and 1.63, respectively) and showed an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.38, 1.67, and 2.04, respectively). In contrast, patients taking etanercept had a decreased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). Although ORs for malignancy varied across the different tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, none reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These meta-analysis updates of the comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors suggest a higher risk of serious infection associated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab, which seems to contribute to higher rates of discontinuation. In contrast, etanercept use showed a lower rate of discontinuation. These data may help guide clinical comparative decision making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Modeling rheumatoid arthritis using different techniques - a review of model construction and results

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease with severe effects on the functional ability of patients. Due to the prevalence of 0.5 to 1.0 percent in western countries, new treatment options are a major concern for decision makers with regard to their budget impact. In this context, cost-effectiveness analyses are a helpful tool to evaluate new treatment options for reimbursement schemes.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze and compare decision analytic modeling techniques and to explore their use in RA with regard to their advantages and shortcomings.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMED and 58 studies reporting health economics decision models were analyzed with regard to the modeling technique used.

RESULTS

From the 58 reviewed publications, we found 13 reporting decision tree-analysis, 25 (cohort) Markov models, 13 publications on individual sampling methods (ISM) and seven discrete event simulations (DES). Thereby 26 studies were identified as presenting independently developed models and 32 models as adoptions. The modeling techniques used were found to differ in their complexity and in the number of treatment options compared. Methodological features are presented in the article and a comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness estimates is given in Additional files 1 and 2.

DISCUSSION

When compared to the other modeling techniques, ISM and DES have advantages in the coverage of patient heterogeneity and, additionally, DES is capable to model more complex treatment sequences and competing risks in RA-patients. Nevertheless, the availability of sufficient data is necessary to avoid assumptions in ISM and DES exercises, thereby enabling biased results. Due to the different settings, time frames and interventions in the reviewed publications, no direct comparison of modeling techniques was applicable. The results from other indications suggest that incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) do not differ significantly between Markov and DES models, but DES is able to report more outcome parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Given a sufficient data supply, DES is the modeling technique of choice when modeling cost-effectiveness in RA. Otherwise transparency on the data inputs is crucial for valid results and to inform decision makers about possible biases. With regard to ICERs, Markov models might provide similar estimates as more advanced modeling techniques.

Mapping from the Health Assessment Questionnaire to the EQ-5D: the impact of different algorithms on cost-effectiveness results

BACKGROUND

Many algorithms exist for converting the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score to utility in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Different algorithms convert the same HAQ score to different utility values, and could therefore lead to different cost-effectiveness results.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of different mapping algorithms within the same cost-effectiveness model.

METHODS

We rebuilt an existing economic model that had previously been used for estimating the cost-effectiveness of second-line biologics in RA. We reviewed the literature to identify algorithms that converted the HAQ score to utility and incorporated them into the model. We compared the cost-effectiveness results using different algorithms, exploring the reasons behind the different results and the potential effect on reimbursement decisions.

RESULTS

We identified 24 different algorithms that estimated utility on the basis of the HAQ score, age, sex, and pain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for rituximab versus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs varied between £18,407/quality-adjusted life-year and £32,039/quality-adjusted life-year, which we speculate could have changed the recommendations made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

CONCLUSIONS

Using different algorithms to convert the HAQ score to utility affects the cost-effectiveness of second-line biologics for the treatment of RA. Using different algorithms in economic modeling for RA could lead health technology assessment bodies to make different reimbursement decisions.

Treating to target with etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis: cost-effectiveness of dose reductions when remission is achieved

BACKGROUND

Current management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) focuses on inducing remission as early as possible to avoid lasting joint damage, and maintenance of remission has become important. A 12-month clinical trial in 834 patients with moderate RA investigated whether etanercept 50 mg/wk could be reduced to half dose or discontinued in patients who achieved low disease activity after 36 weeks.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the three maintenance strategies.

METHODS

A Markov model integrated the three strategies from the clinical trial and extrapolated to 10 years using data from the Swedish RA registry. Assumed treatment strategies after the trial were similar in all three arms, with patients failing to maintain remission on half-dose etanercept or methotrexate alone switching to the full dose of etanercept and patients maintaining remission on full-dose etanercept allowed switching to half dose. Resource use and utilities were taken from an observational study. Results are presented as cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (both discounted 3%) in the societal perspective.

RESULTS

The cost/QALY gained with half-dose etanercept versus methotrexate ranged from €14,000 to €29,000: Longer simulations result in a higher cost/QALY, as the acquisition cost of etanercept increases. Half-dose etanercept technically dominates the full dose (lower costs [€-3000 to 6300] and similar effectiveness [0.007-0.011]).

CONCLUSIONS

Although ultimately all three strategies explored achieve a similar outcome as all three continuously manage patients to maintain remission, it appears that a dose reduction is the most advantageous strategy in patients with moderate disease activity.

How to select the right cost-effectiveness model? : A systematic review and stepwise approach for selecting a transferable health economic evaluation model for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

In the current study, we propose an approach for selection of a model that is transferable to a specific decision-making context (in this case, the Netherlands), using the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objectives of this study were (a) to perform a systematic literature review to identify existing health economic evaluation models for economic evaluation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA; and (b) to test the appropriateness of a stepwise model-selection process.

METHODS

First, we searched Medline and Embase to identify relevant studies in the English language, published between 1 January 2002 and 31 August 2012. From the included studies, all unique models were identified. Second, we applied a multi-step approach to model selection. Models that did not meet all minimal methodological and structural requirements based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria were excluded. Next, models were assessed on the basis of their fit when transferred to the Dutch health care setting. The criteria for model fit were transferability factors, as published by Welte et al., after exclusion of those that were deemed transferable by simple adaptation. Finally, the remaining models underwent a general quality check using the Philips checklist. Models showing good fit and high quality were considered to be transferable to the Dutch health care setting, using simple adaptation.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search identified 498 articles, which included 33 unique health economic evaluation models. Only six models passed the minimal methodological and structural requirements. Two of these models had an imperfect transferability fit to the Dutch health care setting, according to the Welte method. The remaining four models were, according to the Philips method, of good quality and were expected to be transferable by a simple adaptation.

CONCLUSION

This study introduces a stepwise approach for selecting health economic evaluation models that are transferable by a simple adaptation. The approach seems feasible and can be applied in various therapeutic areas, provided that the minimal methodological and structural requirements are defined accordingly. Availability of health economic evaluation models coupled with structured model selection could improve the efficiency, quality and comparability of health economic research.

Including adverse drug events in economic evaluations of anti-tumour necrosis factor-α drugs for adult rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of economic decision analytic models

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor-α drugs (anti-TNFs) have revolutionised the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). More effective than standard non-biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs), anti-TNFs are also substantially more expensive. Consequently, a number of model-based economic evaluations have been conducted to establish the relative cost-effectiveness of anti-TNFs. However, anti-TNFs are associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) such as serious infections relative to nbDMARDs. Such ADEs will likely impact on both the costs and consequences of anti-TNFs, for example, through hospitalisations and forced withdrawal from treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise if, and how, ADEs have been incorporated into model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of anti-TNFs for adult patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; Web of Science; NHS Economic Evaluations Database) were searched for literature published between January 1990 and October 2013 using electronic search strategies. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also hand searched. In addition, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisals were searched to identify economic models used to inform UK healthcare decision making. Only full economic evaluations that had used an economic model to evaluate biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) (including anti-TNFs) for adult patients with RA and had incorporated the direct costs and/or consequences of ADEs were critically appraised. To be included, studies also had to be available as a full text in English. Data extracted included general study characteristics and information concerning the methods used to incorporate ADEs and any associated assumptions made. The extracted data were synthesised using a tabular and narrative format.

RESULTS

A total of 43 model-based economic evaluations of bDMARDs for adult RA were identified from 2,483 initially identified studies (2,473 published; ten technology appraisals). Of these, nine studies had incorporated the incidence and costs of ADEs and were critically reviewed. One study also explicitly estimated the potential consequences for patient utility. There was a general lack of detail specifically reporting on how ADEs were included in the economic models. Furthermore, there was substantial heterogeneity amongst the nine studies concerning the (i) application of risk-related terminology; (ii) method of incorporating the incidence, costs and consequences of ADEs; and (iii) ADE-related assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based economic evaluations have played an integral role in healthcare reimbursement and funding decisions relating to anti-TNFs for adult patients with RA. However, current economic models have not routinely or systematically considered the direct costs or consequences of ADEs, which may bias the estimates of the relative cost-effectiveness of anti-TNFs. Omitting information on relevant costs and consequences of interventions for RA will affect the validity of the associated recommendations for informed decision making. To improve current practice it is recommended that (i) greater efforts be made to provide appropriate long-term safety data on the use of anti-TNFs in adult RA; (ii) empirical research be undertaken to identify and quantify the impact of, and possible methods for, including ADEs in economic models to inform future good practice guidelines; and (iii) economic modelling guidelines and reference cases be updated to explicitly identify ADEs as an important treatment outcome and address how they might be incorporated into economic models. Improved consideration of the possible implications of ADEs in economic models will ensure that healthcare decision makers are provided with reliable and accurate information with which to make efficient reimbursement and financing decisions.

The cost-effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Swedish clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Swedish clinical practice, both as a first and second biological treatment, with or without the combination of conventional DMARDs. Further sub-group analysis of etanercept treatment was performed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patient level data were obtained from three regions of the Swedish Rheumatology Registers. The dataset contained 2,558 patients who had started TNF-inhibitor treatment, 1,049 with etanercept as their first biological treatment. A total of 819 patients had switched to a second TNF-inhibitor, of which 425 to etanercept. A Markov cohort model was used in which health states of disease severity were classified according to HAQ and DAS28. Disease progression and discontinuation rates of TNF-inhibitors were based on the registry and for the comparator on published literature. Mortality, costs and utilities were based on Swedish data. The main analysis had a societal perspective over 20 years and efficacy was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

TNF-inhibitor treatment was associated with an increase in QALYs and an incremental cost compared to no biological treatment. The cost per QALY gained with the three TNF-inhibitors ranged from euro 50,000 to euro 120,000, with lower estimates for TNF-inhibitors used in combination with MTX and as a first biologic. At a progression of 0.045 for the comparator, most values remain within the accepted range for cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that the cost per QALY for TNF-inhibitors was higher than in previous assessments based on registry data and that the results were sensitive to the HAQ progression of the comparator.

Cost-effectiveness of biological therapy compared with methotrexate in the treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Colombia

The objectives of the study are to develop a cost-effectiveness model comparing biological therapy (BT) with methotrexate (MTX) alone, in the treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), combining clinical and quality-of-life data from international trials with local costs and local epidemiological data. We designed a six-month cycle Markov model with five functional states, based on Health Assessment Questionnaire, with patients initiating treatment in any of the predefined states, based on a sample of 150 local RA patients. Simulations ran for 10 and 20 years, and for the whole life span. Utilities, in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), were taken from international literature. Discount rate was 3 % for costs and utilities. We calculated direct and indirect costs using a combination of international and local data. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). ICERs in euros per QALY were <euro>143,072 for 10 years; <euro>139,332 for 20 years; and <euro>137,712 for the whole life span. Total costs with MTX were lower than with BT, despite higher out of pocket, productivity, and complication costs. Under conventional thresholds, and for the "average" RA patient, BT would not be cost-effective in Colombia. BT compared to MTX provides more QALYs, but at a high cost. When ICERs were estimated for Colombia, BT would not be cost-effective. We propose different thresholds for different conditions, perhaps prioritizing chronic diseases that lead to disability.

Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to update the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2003 assessing the benefits and harms of etanercept for the treatment of RA. In addition, we also evaluated the benefits and harms of etanercept plus DMARD compared with DMARD monotherapy in those people with RA who are partial responders to methotrexate (MTX) or any other traditional DMARD.

SEARCH METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. The search was updated to January 2012. Attempts were made to identify other studies by contact with experts, searching reference lists and searching trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials (minimum 24 weeks' duration) comparing four possible combinations: 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) plus a traditional DMARD (either MTX or sulphasalazine) versus a DMARD, 2) etanercept plus DMARD versus etanercept alone, 3) etanercept alone versus a DMARD or 4) etanercept versus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials were included in the original version of the review. An additional six trials, giving a total of 2842 participants, were added to the 2012 update of the review. The trials were generally of moderate to low risk of bias, the majority funded by pharmaceutical companies. Follow-up ranged from six months to 36 months.BenefitAt six to 36 months the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate was statistically significantly improved with etanercept plus DMARD treatment when compared with a DMARD in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD (risk ratio (RR) 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.9, absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 38%; 95% CI 13% to 59%) and in those people who were partial responders to MTX (RR 11.7; 95% CI 1.7 to 82.5, ATB 36%). Similar results were observed when pooling data from all participants (responders or not) (ACR 50 response rates at 24 months: RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.8, ATB 29%; 36 months: RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9, ATB 24%). Statistically significant improvement in physical function and a higher proportion of disease remission were observed in combination-treated participants compared with DMARDs alone ((mean difference (MD) -0.36; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.28 in a 0-3 scale) and (RR 1.92; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.31), respectively) in those people who had an inadequate response to any traditional DMARD. All changes in radiographic scores were statistically significantly less with combination treatment (etanercept plus DMARD) compared with MTX alone for all participants (responders or not) (Total Sharp Score (TSS) (scale = 0 to 448): MD -2.2, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.4; Erosion Score (ES) (scale = 0 to 280): MD -1.6; 95% CI -2.4 to -0.9; Joint Space Narrowing Score (JSNS) (scale = 0 to 168): MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2), and with combination treatment compared with etanercept alone (TSS: MD -1.1; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.5; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.2; JSNS: MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2). The estimate of irreversible physical disability over 10 years given the radiographic findings was 0.45 out of 3.0.When etanercept monotherapy was compared with DMARD monotherapy, there was generally no evidence of a difference in ACR50 response rates when etanercept 10 mg or 25 mg was used; at six months etanercept 25 mg was significantly more likely to achieve ACR50 than DMARD monotherapy but this difference was not found at 12, 24 or 36 months. TSS and ES radiographic scores were statistically significantly improved with etanercept 25 mg monotherapy compared with DMARD (TSS: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.1; ES: MD -0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to -0.3) but there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between etanercept 10 mg monotherapy and MTX.HarmsThere was no evidence of statistically significant differences in infections or serious infections between etanercept plus DMARD and DMARD alone at any point in time. Infection rates were higher in people receiving etanercept monotherapy compared with DMARD; however, there were no differences regarding serious infections. For those participants who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, the rate of total withdrawals was lower for the etanercept plus DMARD group compared with DMARD alone (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.77, ATB 18%). No other statistically significant differences were observed in any of the assessed comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etanercept 25 mg administered subcutaneously twice weekly together with MTX was more efficacious than either etanercept or MTX monotherapy for ACR50 and it slowed joint radiographic progression after up to three years of treatment for all participants (responders or not). There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of infections between groups.

The issue of comparators in economic evaluations of biologic response modifiers in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, a number of biologic response modifiers (BRMs) have emerged and transformed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Due to their relatively high costs, economic evaluations have attempted to determine their place in the RA treatment armamentarium. This article reviews three key areas where changes to the treatment paradigm challenges findings of existing economic evaluations.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of economic evaluations examining BRMs approved for use in North America for RA. Only economic evaluations that examined relevant direct costs and health outcomes were included. Data were extracted and summarised, then stratified by patient population and comparators. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared across studies.

RESULTS

It appears that tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors are less cost effective compared to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for first-line treatment. In addition, it appears that treatment with a TNF alpha inhibitor in patients who were refractory to previous DMARD therapies is more cost effective, compared to switching to another DMARD. Finally, after an inadequate response to a TNF alpha inhibitor, it appears that therapy with rituximab is more cost effective than treatment with another TNF alpha inhibitor or abatacept.

DISCUSSION

It is important to acknowledge that cost effectiveness depends on which comparators are included in the analyses and the evidence for the comparators. The most typical comparator in the studies was traditional DMARDs, mainly methotrexate. However, as more BRMs come into the market and new clinical evidences emerge on the comparative effectiveness of BRMs, new economic evaluations will need to incorporate this information such that reimbursement decisions can be fully informed regarding relative value.

The comparison of trial data-based and registry data-based cost-effectiveness of infliximab treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden using a modeling approach

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the precision of the predictive cost-effectiveness assessment based on a phase 3 clinical trial with infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Swedish clinical practice.

METHODS

Three patient cohorts were identified: the patients included in the infliximab trial (ATTRACT), patients initially treated with infliximab from a Swedish registry (STURE), a subset of these registry patients meeting inclusion criteria for the ATTRACT trial was the third patient cohort; two sets of assumptions in relation to the efficacy data were evaluated: "ATTRACT" (efficacy data over the duration of the trial) and "STURE" (effectiveness data over 10 years). In addition, the impact of including the placebo effect for the comparator was evaluated as a basis for the calculation of cost-effectiveness by using a modeling approach. A health economic model was utilized to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

The results for the three patient cohorts ranged from cost saving to a cost per QALY gained of €2,400 and €24,900 to €26,000 when the ATTRACT and STURE assumptions were used, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the inclusion of placebo effect had the largest effect on the results, increasing the cost per QALY gained to approximately €50,000 for all patient cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment effect of infliximab measured in clinical trials and clinical practice results in comparable cost-effectiveness ratios, as calculated by using a modeling approach, whereas the assumptions made in relation to the effectiveness data and the chosen comparator have a large impact on the results. This reinforces the value of early modeling studies based on randomized clinical trial data, but assumptions made need to be carefully assessed.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive eptifibatide in patients undergoing coronary stenting in Germany

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding eptifibatide to the standard treatment for selected high-risk patients undergoing coronary stenting in Germany. Furthermore, to investigate the impact of several extrapolation methods on the results.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to reflect the clinical events in this specific patient population, including target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death. To extrapolate clinical data beyond 1 year, a linear, an exponential, and a Weibull survival curves were estimated. Patient characteristics and transition probabilities were derived from a high-risk subgroup of the ESPRIT trial; patient-level utility data came from a published Dutch study. Costs were calculated from a hospital and from a third-party payer perspective.

RESULTS

For both perspectives, the additional treatment with eptifibatide is the considered dominant alternative. The incremental net benefit of its use exceeds €10,000 for both perspectives. Results proved stable in probabilistic sensitivity analysis as well as under the different extrapolation scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Eptifibatide is likely to be dominant strategy with 77.7 and 96.7% of the simulations leading to QALYs gained and generating cost savings from both the hospital and the third-party payer perspective. Eptifibatide offsets its additional treatment costs by avoiding costly repeat procedures and leads to positive QALY gains by preventing cardiovascular events lending themselves to transient or permanent lower quality of life. The method used to extrapolate the short-term risks did not impact on results, mainly due to similar clinical risk profiles between the two treatment groups in the long term.

An overview of models used in economic analyses of biologic therapies for arthritis--from current diversity to future consensus

A number of cost-effectiveness models have been developed with the aim of providing guidance for decision making on biologic therapies for the management of inflammatory joint disease. The findings of these analyses can differ markedly, and these differences can undermine the credibility of such models if unexplained. To allow differences between models to be identified more easily, we define six components common to all models-initial response, longer term disease progression, mortality, quality-adjusted life year estimation, resource use and the selection and interpretation of data. We give examples of divergent approaches taken by model structures to the same issue, and explore the impact of divergence on model results, with particular focus on two models that have reported substantially different estimates for the cost-effectiveness of third-line etanercept vs conventional DMARD. The sensitivity of results to a particular assumption made in a model will depend on the decision problem and assumptions made elsewhere in the model, highlighting the importance of guidance throughout model development. To some extent, guidance from bodies such as the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence can be used to determine which approach should be preferred where models differ. However, there is a pressing need for clinical input and guidance before consensus can be reached on the most credible model(s) to use for decision support.

Cost-effectiveness of etanercept treatment in early active rheumatoid arthritis followed by dose adjustment

Objectives: To explore the cost-effectiveness of early biologic treatment, followed by dose-reduction in the case of remission, of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), compared with standard treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in Sweden.

Methods: Effectiveness (function, disease activity, erosions) in early RA for both alternatives was taken from a clinical trial comparing etanercept (ETA) combined with MTX to MTX alone. Patients discontinuing treatment can switch to another or their first biologic treatment. For patients in remission (Disease Activity Score [DAS28] < 2.6), ETA is reduced to half the dose. Return to full dose occurs when DAS28 reaches ≥ 3.2 again. Costs and utilities by level of functional capacity from an observational study are used. The model is analyzed as a micro-simulation and results are presented from the societal perspective for Sweden, for 10 years; costs (€2008) and effects are discounted at 3 percent. Sensitivity analysis was performed for the perspective, the time horizon, switching, and dose-reduction.

Results: The main analysis conservatively assumes 50 percent switching at discontinuation. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with early ETA/MTX treatment is €13,500 (societal perspective, incremental cost of €15,500 and incremental QALYs of 1.15). With 75 percent switching, the cost per QALY gained was €10,400. Over 20 years, the cost per QALY gained was €8,200. Results were further sensitive to the time patients remained on half dose and the perspective.

Conclusions and Policy Implications: This study combines clinical trial and clinical practice data to explore cost-effective treatment scenarios in early RA, including the use of biologics. Our results indicate that a situation where a considerable proportion of patients achieve remission, dose-adjustments will increase the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

Indirect cost-effectiveness analyses of abatacept and rituximab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for abatacept and rituximab, in combination with methotrexate, relative to methotrexate alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A patient-level simulation model was used to depict the progression of functional disability over the lifetimes of women aged 55-64 years with active RA and inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha antagonist therapy. Future health-state utilities and medical care costs were based on projected values of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Patients were assumed to receive abatacept or rituximab in combination with methotrexate until death or therapy discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. HAQ-DI improvement at month 6, after adjustments for control drug (methotrexate) response, was derived from two clinical trials. Costs of medical care and biologic drugs, discounted at 3% annually, were from the perspective of a US third-party payer and expressed in 2007 US dollars.

RESULTS

Relative to methotrexate alone, abatacept/methotrexate and rituximab/methotrexate therapies were estimated to yield an average of 1.25 and 1.10 additional QALYs per patient, at mean incremental costs of $58,989 and $60,380, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio relative to methotrexate was $47,191 (95% CI $44,810-49,920) per QALY gained for abatacept/methotrexate and $54,891 (95% CI $52,274-58,073) per QALY gained for rituximab/methotrexate. At an acceptability threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the probability of cost effectiveness was 90% for abatacept and 0.0% for rituximab.

CONCLUSION

Abatacept was estimated to be more cost effective than rituximab for use in RA from a US third-party payer perspective. However, head-to-head clinical trials and long-term observational data are needed to confirm these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of 5 years of treatment with hormone therapy (HT) compared with no treatment for women with menopausal symptoms in the United States.

METHODS

A Markov cohort simulation model was used with tunnel techniques to assess the cost-effectiveness of HT in women aged 50 years, based on a societal perspective. Clinical data, where possible, used results taken from the Women Health Initiative (WHI). The model had a lifetime horizon with cycle lengths of 1 year and contained the following disease states: hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolic events. An intervention was modelled by its impact on the disease risks during and after stopping treatment. The model required data on clinical effects, risks, mortality rates, quality of life weights, and costs. The main outcome of the model was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained on HT compared with no treatment.

RESULTS

The results indicated that it was cost-effective to treat women with menopausal symptoms with HT in the United States. The severity of menopausal symptoms was the single most important determinant of cost-effectiveness, but HT remained cost-effective even where symptoms were mild or effects on symptom relief were small.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of women with menopausal symptoms with HT is cost-effective.

Cytokines as targets for anti-inflammatory agents

Well over a decade ago a central role of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) was first described in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when remarkable clinical benefit was demonstrated in patients with refractory disease were treated with using either a monoclonal antibody or a soluble receptor fusion protein. There are now five anti-TNF agents approved by regulatory agencies for treating RA. Identifying which RA patients will have a meaningful clinical response (improvement in outcomes measures such as ACR 20, DAS score, remission, etc.) when used as monotherapy, or in combination with other immunosuppressive agents remains a major research effort. Also, attention has focused on the potential adverse events that can be seen with these therapies; an increase in opportunistic infections being the most clearly linked adverse event. These anti-TNF therapies have revolutionized the clinicians' ability to make a significant impact in RA, a disease that has significant excess morbidity and mortality.

Cost-effectiveness of real-world infliximab use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden

Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of infliximab use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Swedish clinical practice, based on patient-level data from the Stockholm TNF-alpha follow-up registry (STURE).

Methods: Real-world patient-level data on infliximab use from the STURE registry were implemented in a Markov cohort model, in which health states of functional status were classified according to the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ—five categories) and twenty-eight joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28). The transition probabilities between HAQ and DAS28 states during treatment, as well as discontinuation rates were modeled based on data from the registry for patients using infliximab as their first-line biological treatment. The transition probabilities in the comparator arm, that is, disease progression without biologic treatment, as well as mortality rates, costs, and utilities were based on published literature. The analysis had a societal cost perspective.

Results: Infliximab was associated with an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 1.02 and an incremental cost of €23,264 per patient compared with progression without biologic treatment, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €22,830 (SEK211,136 or US$31,230). Sensitivity analyses of input parameters and model assumptions produced ICERs in the range from €18,000 to €47,000.

Conclusions: Results from base-case and sensitivity analyses fell well below established benchmarks for cost-effectiveness in Sweden. The results, therefore, indicated that infliximab treatment for RA has provided good societal value for money in Swedish clinical practice, compared with a scenario of no biological treatment.

Costs and outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological drugs in Sweden: a model based on registry data

OBJECTIVE

To design an economic model describing the costs and outcomes for patients treated with tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in current clinical practice in Sweden, to be used as a tool to estimate cost-effectiveness of the next generation of treatments.

METHODS

The model was constructed as a discrete event simulation (DES) model analysed at patient level. It contains treatment and outcome data for 1903 patients followed in the RA registry for biological drugs in southern Sweden between 1999 and 2007 [the Southern Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group (SSATG) Register]. Resource consumption was based on a survey of 1027 patients in the same region. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are presented for 10(5) years, for patients with the mean characteristics at treatment start in SSATG [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score 1.33, disease duration 12.1 years, age 55 years], but also for patients with more or less severe disease. Cost and outcomes (QALYs) are discounted with 3%.

RESULTS

The 10-year costs in the base case amount to USD 336,000 (SD USD 64,000) or EUR 223 000, with a total of 4.4 QALYs. Over 5 years, the costs amount to USD 208,000 or EUR 138,000 and QALYs to 2.5. The results were most sensitive to HAQ level at treatment start, but also to underlying disease progression, age, and disease duration. Starting treatment at a lower HAQ level (0.85) reduces costs by 10% and increase QALYs by 20%.

CONCLUSION

This analysis is based on the longest available follow-up for patients treated with TNFalpha inhibitors and provides an opportunity to explore treatment strategies when new therapies become available using actual clinical practice data.

The Economic Burden of Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Clinical Practice: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sub-Cutaneous Anti-TNFα Treatment in Italian Patients

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a prevalence of 0.46%, is found in about 272,004 patients in Italy. The socioeconomic cost of rheumatoid arthritis in Italy in 2002 has been estimated at €1,600 million. Cost-effectiveness evaluations have been based on the concept that, with treatment, patients will not progress to the next level(s) of disease severity or will take a longer time to progress, thus avoiding or delaying the high costs and low utility associated with more severe disease. Many cost-effective studies have been based on the variation of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) in clinical trials. The objective of this study is to perform a cost-effective analysis of 86 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in therapy with adalimumab 40 mg every other week and etanercept 50 mg/week for two years in a population of patients observed in clinical practice. The group of patients in therapy with adalimumab had also taken methotrexate, mean dose 12.4±2.5 mg/week (22 patients) or leflunomide 20 mg/day (16 patients). The group of patients in therapy with etanercept had also taken methotrexate, mean dose 11.7±2.6 mg/week (24 patients) or leflunomide 20 mg/day (24 patients). Incremental costs and QALYs (quality adjusted life years) gains are calculated compared with baseline, assuming that without biologic treatment patients would remain at the baseline level through the year. Conversion HAQ scores to utility were based on the Bansback algorithm. The results after two years showed: in the group methotrexate+adalimumab the QALY gained was 0.62±0.15 with a treatment cost of €26,517.62 and a QALY/cost of €42,521.13. In the group methotrexate+etanercept the QALY gained was 0.64±0.26 with a treatment cost of €25,020.96 and a QALY/cost of €39,171.76. The result of using etanercept in association with methotrexate is cost-effectiveness with a QALY gained under the acceptable threshold of €50,000. These are important data for discussion from an economic point of view when we choose a biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

Health economic issues in rheumatoid arthritis

The objectives of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are to reduce temporary symptoms due to inflammatory activity and, more importantly, to preserve function. The introduction of potent disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in recent years has increased the opportunities for effective treatment. However, these treatments come at a substantially higher cost than traditional DMARDs and therefore compete with other essential interventions for limited resources. They have triggered a debate on whether they represent an efficient use of resources, which patients should be treated, when, and for how long. Cost-effectiveness analysis attempts to estimate the trade-offs involved in these decisions and to provide information that can help in making them. However, in chronic progressive diseases, health gains and any potential associated economic benefits are often most evident in the long-term. As a consequence, the impact of new treatments has to be estimated using models that can project available knowledge, such as results from clinical trials or short-term follow-up studies in clinical practice, into the future. These models also allow scenarios to be explored that provide the best value for money, for example by defining subgroups for which treatment is most effective, or criteria that define when treatment should be stopped. Economic evaluation in RA has a long tradition, with the first study performed about 20 years ago. However, with the recent drug introductions, the field has witnessed an explosion of economic studies. Modelling techniques have become more sophisticated to overcome concerns about their validity. At the same time, they may appear less transparent, making it difficult for non-specialists to understand the details. This article, rather than reviewing all published models and comparing them, attempts to illustrate the inputs required for such studies, and the influence that different approaches and datasets can have on the results.

Rheumatoid arthritis: what does it cost and what factors are driving those costs? Results of a survey in a community‐derived population in Malmö, Sweden

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the cost of living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and evaluate the influence of both demographics and specific disease characteristics on these costs.

METHODS

We used a population-based questionnaire to survey 895 patients living in the city of Malmö, Sweden, during 2002. Data were obtained on direct resource consumption, investments, informal care and work capacity, as well as utility, function and patients' assessment of disease severity and pain.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 613 patients (68%). Their mean age was 66 years, 74% were female and the mean duration of disease was 16.7 years. The total mean annual cost per patient was 108,370 SEK (12,020 EUR). Direct costs represented 41% of that amount and were predominantly for drugs [14% of the participants were receiving treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) blockers], community services and hospitalisation. Function measured with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the main statistical predictor for all types of costs except sick leave, which was most strongly associated with patients' perception of global health.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in Sweden to include all costs incurred by a group representative of RA in the community. In comparison with previous studies, total costs had increased by more than 40%. Furthermore, direct costs were higher and constituted a great proportion of total costs because of more intensive treatments (i.e. the use of TNF blockers). Future comparisons will enable health economic evaluations on a community level.

Real-World Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis: Cost-Effectiveness Based on Number Needed to Treat to Improve Health Assessment Questionnaire

Objective.

To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) medications in a real-world environment for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).

Methods.

We created a database of patients with RA, PsA, or AS treated with anti-TNF agents (etanercept, infliximab, or adalimumab) at a large outpatient rheumatology clinic. Patient characteristics, baseline HAQ prior to treatment, subsequent yearly HAQ, and reasons for termination were collected. The cost based on percentage of patients achieving ≥ 0.2 improvement in HAQ (minimal clinically important difference, MCID) was calculated using the 2008 direct cost (Cdn) of the medication.

Results.

Data were available on 297 patients (206 with RA, 57 PsA, 34 AS). The mean age was 55 years, with 12 years of disease, and the mean baseline HAQ (standard error, SE) was 1.37 (0.04). The changes in HAQ (SE) at Years 1, 2, and 3 were −0.31 (0.04), −0.24 (0.06), and −0.27 (0.07) for annual cost to achieve MCID of $41,636, $42,077, and $42,147, respectively. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 1.94 (RA), 1.88 (PsA), and 2.30 (AS). There were no statistical differences between the diseases studied.

Conclusion.

We obtained data on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF drugs using the HAQ score, which is known to be an excellent predictor of work disability, morbidity, and mortality. HAQ scores decreased with treatment and were sustained throughout the 3–5 years of followup. The NNT of approximately 2 seems favorable and was similar between diseases.

Synthesis and activity of tryptophan sulfonamide derivatives as novel non-hydroxamate TNF-alpha converting enzyme (TACE) inhibitors

A novel series of non-hydroxamate tryptophan sulfonamide derivatives containing a butynyloxy P1' moiety was identified as inhibitors of TNF-alpha converting enzyme (TACE). The structure-activity relationship of the series was examined via substitution on the tryptophan indole ring. Of the compounds investigated, 2-(4-(but-2-ynyloxy)phenylsulfonamido)-3-(1-(4-methoxybenzyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)propanoic acid (12p) has the best in vitro potency against isolated TACE enzyme with an IC(50) of 80 nM. Compound 12p also shows good selectivity over MMP-1, -13, -14.

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with rituximab using registry data from Southern Sweden

Objectives:The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rituximab in patients not responding adequately to the first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor using a model constructed to predict resource consumption and health outcomes in a population-based registry of biological treatments in Southern Sweden (SSATG).

Methods:The model was developed as a discrete event simulation model, using SSATG data for the years 1999–2007. The data set included 1,903 patients with complete data on treatments (up to three treatment lines), functional capacity (HAQ), disease activity (DAS28), and utility (EQ-5D). Resource consumption was based on a regular population-based survey of patients in Southern Sweden. Rituximab was incorporated as second line treatment, using effectiveness data for the active group (N= 311) in a clinical trial comparing rituximab to placebo (REFLEX). It is thus compared to the mix of second line biologics used in SSATG. The analysis starts after failure of the first TNF inhibitor. Results are reported as costs (€2008) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; both discounted 3 percent), for the societal perspective in Sweden.

Results:Total costs in the rituximab strategy are estimated at €401,100 compared with €403,000 in the TNF-inhibitor arm. Total QALYs are 5.98 and 5.78, respectively. The findings were found to be robust in extensive sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions:In our model, a strategy where rituximab is used as second line treatment after failure of the first TNF inhibitor provides a small saving (essentially due to the lower price of rituximab) and a QALY gain (due to better effect than the mix of second line TNF inhibitors).

UK cost-utility analysis of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis that failed to respond adequately to a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis that failed to respond adequately to tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; bDMARDs). A cost-utility model has been developed to simulate the long-term incremental cost and benefits of rituximab using data from clinical trials and registries.

METHODS

The model estimates the lifetime disease progression of up to 10,000 hypothetical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients that failed one bDMARD. It compares cost and outcomes of two treatment sequences, representing the current UK standard both with and without rituximab. The population characteristics match those of the Randomised Evaluation of Long-term Efficacy of rituximab in RA (REFLEX) phase III randomised control trial. Clinical outcomes were based on an indirect comparison of published American College of Rheumatology response rates, adjusted for differences in placebo. To estimate medical resource use, health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) scores were grouped into five categories with UK registry data informing the average cost for each category. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were mapped from disease severity (HAQ scores).

RESULTS

Compared to a standard UK treatment sequence (assuming the sequential use of bDMARDs) the introduction of rituximab led to a QALY gain of 0.526 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) based on total direct medical cost were 11,601 pounds. Adding rituximab to a treatment sequence with no sequential use of biologic generates an ICER of 14,690 pounds.

CONCLUSION

Rituximab has lower average annual treatment costs compared to other bDMARDs and is a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients who have failed to respond adequately to one bDMARD. The cost per QALY gained of rituximab falls well below commonly accepted thresholds within the UK. Potential weaknesses of the model include the paucity of data on the efficacy of bDMARDs or non-biologic DMARDs when used as second-line options; the lack of consensus about the most appropriate therapy in patients who fail all available bDMARDs; probable underestimation of the non-drug related medical costs; indirect measurement of QALY gains with rituximab therapy; and the necessity of synthesising data from a number of clinical trials with different populations and study drugs.