Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitors compared with rituximab as second-line biologic drug in rheumatoid arthritis

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested.

RESULTS

Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

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 of Rituximab Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Utility Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Depletion of B cells is shown to be clinically effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Although B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab is indicated for RA patients who have failed to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), primary cost-effectiveness evidence is inconsistent. We aimed to provide synthesised cost-effectiveness evidence of rituximab in the treatment of RA compared to other DMARDs, since the published cost-effectiveness evidence is mixed.

METHODS

We identified economic evaluation studies reporting cost-utility of rituximab compared to other DMARDs by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled incremental net benefit (INB) in (purchasing power parity) adjusted US$ with 95% confidence intervals. We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument for quality appraisal. The study protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021222541.

RESULTS

Of the selected 18 studies, the majority were from high-income countries (n = 14) followed by upper middle-income countries (n = 3) and lower middle-income countries (n = 1), with minimal risk of bias. Rituximab is significantly cost effective with a pooled INB (95% CI) of $8767 (720 to 16,814). On subgroup analysis, rituximab is significantly cost effective from a health system perspective [$12,832 (3392 to 22,272)], for studies using 3.5% discount rate [$15,468 (5973 to 24,963)] and a for a time horizon of less than 5 years [$8496 (1547 to 15,445)]. In a separate analysis, rituximab as third-line therapy (for conventional synthetic DMARDs followed by any other biologic DMARD failed patients) was not cost effective compared to DMARDs [$5314 (-2278 to 12,905)]. Further, the GRADE assessment indicated very-low confidence in the pooled results.

CONCLUSION

Rituximab is cost effective compared to other DMARDs but not if used as third-line therapy after failure of biologics. There is a need to generate context-specific evidence for the lower income settings.

Factors associated with selection of targeted therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Deciding which drug to choose for targeted therapy is an important step in sequential treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aimed to identify factors for selecting Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) rather than biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with RA in real-world practice.

METHODS

We selected RA patients starting JAKis or bDMARDs from single-center prospective cohorts in Korea. Patients were divided into JAKi, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, and non-TNF inhibitor groups. We performed multinomial logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with selecting JAKis.

RESULTS

145, 205, and 89 patients were included in the JAKi, TNF inhibitor, and non-TNF inhibitor groups. In multinomial regression analysis, the JAKi group was older than the TNF inhibitor group (OR 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05) but younger than the non-TNF inhibitor group (OR 0.97, CI 0.95-1.00). The JAKi group was less likely to have chronic pulmonary diseases compared with the TNF inhibitor group (OR 0.07, CI 0.01-0.56) or the non-TNF inhibitor group (OR 0.06, CI 0.01-0.50). Higher disease activity assessed by physician (OR 1.80, CI 1.51-2.38) and previous tacrolimus use (OR 2.05, CI 1.20-3.51) were factors suggesting selection of JAKis than TNF inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Age, pulmonary comorbidities, previous tacrolimus use, and high disease activity assessed by physician were factors influencing the selection of JAKis for RA patients in Korea.

Managing inadequate response to initial anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: optimising treatment outcomes

Anti-tumour necrosis factors (anti-TNFs) are established as first-line biological therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with over two decades of accumulated clinical experience. Anti-TNFs have well established efficacy/safety profiles along with additional benefits on various comorbidities. However, up to 40% of patients may respond inadequately to an initial anti-TNF treatment because of primary non-response, loss of response, or intolerance. Following inadequate response (IR) to anti-TNF treatment, clinicians can consider switching to an alternative anti-TNF (cycling) or to another class of targeted drug with a different mechanism of action, such as Janus kinase inhibitors, interleukin-6 receptor blockers, B-cell depletion agents, and co-stimulation inhibitors (swapping). While European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for pharmacotherapeutic management of RA, published in 2020, are widely regarded as helpful guides to clinical practice, they do not provide any clear recommendations on therapeutic choices following an IR to first-line anti-TNF. This suggests that both cycling and swapping treatment strategies are of equal value, but that the treating physician must take the patient’s individual characteristics into account. This article considers which patient characteristics influence clinical decision-making processes, including the reason for treatment failure, previous therapies, comorbidities, extra-articular manifestations, pregnancy, patient preference and cost-effectiveness, and what evidence is available to support decisions made by the physician.

Cost-effectiveness of Anbainuo plus methotrexate compared to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis patients in China

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anbainuo (ABN) plus methotrexate (MTX) vs. conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in Chinese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

A total of 90 RA patients who underwent ABN + MTX [assigned as ABN + MTX group (n=47)] or cDMARDs [assigned as control group (n=43)] treatment were analyzed. Disease activity was assessed at baseline (M0), 3^rd month (M3), 6^th month (M6), and 12^th month (M12) after treatment. Drug, other medical, indirect, and total costs were calculated. Then, pharmacoeconomic analyses were performed with the threshold of cost-effectiveness set as 3 times of the mean gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China during the study period.

Results

Treatment response rate was similar between the 2 groups, while disease remission and low disease activity (LDA) rates were increased in the ABN + MTX group compared to control group. Drug cost, other medical costs, and total cost were higher in the ABN + MTX group than control group, while indirect cost was similar between the 2 groups. Meanwhile, the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in ABN + MTX group and control group were 0.72 and 0.48 years, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of ABN + MTX group compared to control group among the entire participant cohort, moderate-disease-activity participants, and severe-disease-activity participants were ¥135,486.7, ¥146,450.4, and ¥124,987.2/QALY, respectively, which were all below the cost-effectiveness threshold. Further sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of ABN + MTX vs. cDMARDs was relatively robust, while among all the indexes, ABN price and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score change for the ABN + MTX group affected ICER most.

Conclusions

Treatment with ABN + MTX offers acceptable cost-effectiveness compared to cDMARDs treatment in Chinese RA patients.

Effectiveness of TOcilizumab in comparison to Prednisone In Rheumatoid Arthritis patients with insufficient response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (TOPIRA): study protocol for a pragmatic trial

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease, predominantly affecting joints, which is initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). In RA patients with insufficient response to csDMARDs, the addition of prednisone or tocilizumab, a biological DMARD (bDMARD), to the medication has been shown to be effective in reducing RA symptoms. However, which of these two treatment strategies has superior effectiveness and safety is unknown.

Methods

In this multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, pragmatic trial, we aim to recruit 120 RA patients meeting the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for RA, with active disease defined as a Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) > 10 and at least one swollen joint of the 28 assessed. Patients must be on stable treatment with csDMARDs for ≥ 8 weeks prior to screening and must have been treated with ≥ 2 DMARDs, of which a maximum of one tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (a class of bDMARDs) is allowed. Previous use of other bDMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs is not allowed. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tocilizumab (subcutaneously at 162 mg/week) or prednisone (orally at 10 mg/day) as an addition to their current csDMARD therapy. Study visits will be performed at screening; baseline; and months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Study medication will be tapered in case of clinical remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8 and ≤ 1 swollen joint at two consecutive 3-monthly visits) with careful monitoring of disease activity. In case of persistent high disease activity at or after month 3 (CDAI > 22 at any visit or > 10 at two consecutive visits), patients will switch to the other strategy arm. Primary outcome is a change in CDAI from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes are additional clinical response and quality of life measures, drug retention rate, radiographically detectable progression of joint damage, functional ability, and cost utility. Safety outcomes include tocilizumab-associated adverse events (AEs), glucocorticoid-associated AEs, and serious AEs.

Discussion

This will be the first randomized clinical trial comparing addition of oral prednisone or of tocilizumab head to head in RA patients with insufficient response to csDMARD therapy. It will yield important information for clinical rheumatology practice.

Trial registration

This trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on October 7, 2019 (NL8070). The Netherlands Trial Register contains all items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set.

Precision medicine in the care of rheumatoid arthritis: Focus on prediction and prevention of future clinically-apparent disease

There is an emerging understanding that an individual's risk for future rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be determined using a combination of factors while they are still in a state where clinically-apparent inflammatory arthritis (IA) is not yet present. Indeed, this concept has underpinned several completed and ongoing prevention trials in RA. Importantly, risk factors can be divided into modifiable (e.g. smoking, exercise, dental care and diet) and non-modifiable factors (e.g. genetics, sex, age). In addition, there are now several biomarkers including autoantibodies, inflammatory markers and imaging techniques that are highly predictive of future clinically-apparent IA/RA. Although none of the prevention studies have yet provided major breakthroughs, several of them have provided valuable insights that can help to improve the design of future clinical trials and enable RA prevention. In aggregate, these findings suggest that the most accurate disease prediction models will require the combination of demographic and clinical information, biomarkers and potentially medical imaging data to identify individuals for intervention. This review summarizes some of the key aspects around precision medicine in RA with special focus on disease prediction and prevention.