Trial-based cost-effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis patients in Italy

Compared efficacy of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to methotrexate or TNF inhibitors agents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to compare the efficacy of rituximab, tocilizumab, and abatacept in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to treatments with MTX or TNFi agents.

METHODS

We searched 6 databases until January 2023 for phase 2-4 RCTs evaluating patients with RA refractory to MTX or TNFi therapy treated with rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab (intervention arm) compared to controls. Study data were independently assessed by two investigators. The primary outcome was considered as achieving ACR70 response.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 19 RCTs, with 7,835 patients and a mean study duration of 1.2 years. Hazard ratios for achieving an ACR70 response at six months were not different among the bDMARDs, however, we found high heterogeneity. Three factors showing a critical imbalance among the bDMARD classes were identified: baseline HAQ score, study duration, and frequency of TNFi treatment in control arm. Multivariate meta-regression adjusted to these three factors were conducted for the relative risk (RR) for ACR70. Thus, heterogeneity was attenuated (I2 = 24%) and the explanatory power of the model increased (R2 = 85%). In this model, rituximab did not modify the chance of achieving an ACR70 response compared to abatacept (RR = 1.773, 95%CI 0.113-10.21, p = 0.765). In contrast, abatacept was associated with RR = 2.217 (95%CI 1.554-3.161, p < 0.001) for ACR70 compared to tocilizumab.

CONCLUSION

We found high heterogeneity among studies comparing rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab. On multivariate metaregressions, if the conditions of the RCTs were similar, we estimate that abatacept could increase the chance of reaching an ACR70 response by 2.2-fold compared to tocilizumab.

Cost of illness del carcinoma cutaneo a cellule squamose (CSCC)

Background:

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most frequent form of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and accounts for 20-25% of skin cancers (AIOM Guidelines 2019).

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to estimate the total annual direct costs incurred by the National Health Service for the management and treatment of CSCC and advanced CSCC patients in Italy.

Methods:

An incidence-based cost of illness (COI) model was developed to estimate direct costs associated with the treatment and management of CSCC patients in Italy. The identified treatment pathway was validated with a team of clinical experts and was distinguished between resectable CSCC and locally advanced CSCC or metastatic CSCC. Treatments costs were obtained through the analysis of the National Hospital Discharge Database (HDD) for the years 2015-2018; monitoring and terminal care costs were obtained from national tariffs of outpatient care service and from the literature respectively.

Results:

Associating the estimated costs for each phase of the treatment pathway with the proportion of patients present in each phase, the COI model estimated an annual economic burden of about € 25.9 million for the management and treatment of patients with CSCC in Italy, € 2.7 million of which were associated to patients with advanced CSCC. The average cost per patient with advanced CSCC was higher compared to that of patient with resectable CSCC (€ 4,490 vs € 2,236 respectively).

Conclusions:

Our analysis showed that advanced CSCC patients are associated with a higher average cost than patients with resectable CSCC.

Abatacept: from a budget impact model to cost-effectiveness analysis - data from RCT and real life

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects joints with swelling and progressive joint destruction. The pathology leads to a progressive disability with an impact on the quality of life of the patients. Strategies to reduce in-patient care costs could have a considerable impact on lowering the direct medical costs of RA in Italy. Abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, is a valuable treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe RA. A search using the keywords “cost-effectiveness analysis", "budget impact model", "abatacept", and "rheumatoid arthritis” was carried out on PubMed. Abatacept in the first- and second-treatment lines has been evaluated in our research. We evaluated patients with inadequate MTX response, inadequate anti-TNF agents response, switch studies and real-world data. Furthermore, in our research, we evaluated the main head-to-head studies published.

Abatacept: A Review in Rheumatoid Arthritis

The biological DMARD (bDMARD) abatacept (Orencia^®), a recombinant fusion protein, selectively modulates a co-stimulatory signal necessary for T-cell activation. In the EU, abatacept is approved for use in patients with highly active and progressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not previously treated with methotrexate. Abatacept is also approved for the treatment of moderate to severe active RA in patients with an inadequate response to previous therapy with at least one conventional DMARD (cDMARD), including methotrexate or a TNF inhibitor. In phase III trials, beneficial effects on RA signs and symptoms, disease activity, structural damage progression and physical function were seen with intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) abatacept regimens, including abatacept plus methotrexate in methotrexate-naive patients with early RA and poor prognostic factors, and abatacept plus methotrexate or other cDMARDs in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate or TNF inhibitors. Benefits were generally maintained during longer-term follow-up. Absolute drug-free remission rates following withdrawal of all RA treatments were significantly higher with abatacept plus methotrexate than with methotrexate alone. Both IV and SC abatacept were generally well tolerated, with low rates of immunogenicity. Current evidence therefore suggests that abatacept is a useful treatment option for patients with RA.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.

Economic Burden of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy: Possible Consequences on Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody-Positive Patients

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease with a substantial medical and economic burden. In Italy, it affects approximately 280,000 people, therefore representing the musculoskeletal disease with the highest economic impact in terms of costs for the National Health Service and the social security system.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the annual economic burden of RA in Italy and determine the potential cost reduction considering the most effective biologic treatment for early rapidly progressing RA (ERPRA) patients.

METHODS

The model developed considers both direct costs that are mainly due to the pharmacological treatments, and indirect costs, which also include the productivity lost because of the disease. A systematic literature review provided the epidemiological and economic data used to inform the model. A one-way probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on 5000 Monte Carlo simulations was performed. Furthermore, specific scenario analyses were developed for those patients presenting an ERPRA, with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of different biologic treatments for this subgroup of patients and estimating potential cost reduction.

RESULTS

The total economic burden associated with RA was estimated to be €2.0 billion per year (95% confidence interval [CI] €1.8-2.3 billion). Forty-five percent of the expenditure was due to indirect costs (95% CI €0.8-1.0 billion); 45% depended on direct medical costs (95% CI €0.7-1.1 billion), and the residual 10% was determined by direct non-medical costs (95% CI €0.16-0.25 billion). In particular, the costs estimated for ERPRA patients totalled €76,171,181, of which approximately €18 million was associated with patients with a high level of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA). The results of the analysis outline how it is possible to obtain a cost reduction for ERPRA patients of between €1 and €3 million by varying the number of patients with a high level of immunoglobulin G treated with the most effective biologic drug. In fact, the latter may determine higher efficacy outcomes, especially for poor prognostic ERPRA patients, ensuing higher levels of productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a pioneering approach to estimate the direct and indirect costs of RA. The model developed is a useful tool for policy makers as it allows to understand the economic implications of RA treatment in Italy, identify the most effective allocation of resources, and select the most appropriate treatment for ERPRA patients.