A forgotten aspect of the NICE reference case: an observational study of the health related quality of life impact on caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: There are few published health technology assessments that have included the impact of a disease or treatment on caregivers' health related quality of life (HRQL). The objectives of this study were to explore the overall HRQL of caregivers of people with Multiple Sclerosis compared to matched controls, and more specifically explore the impact of different levels of functioning in people with MS on caregivers' HRQL scores. METHODS: A cross sectional observational study conducted as an online survey was undertaken in the UK. 200 caregivers of people with MS and 200 matched controls completed the EQ-5D, SF-36, HADS and a socio-demographic questionnaire. Caregivers also completed the Patient Determined Disease Steps questionnaire as a measure of MS severity. Differences in HRQL between caregivers and controls were assessed using t-tests and chi square analyses as appropriate. Ordinary Least Squares regression was also used to evaluate the disutility of being a caregiver compared to controls stratified by MS severity. RESULTS: Caregivers reported significantly lower HRQL, as measured by the SF-36, HADS and EQ-5D, compared to matched controls. A lower level of functioning in people with MS was mirrored by lower levels of caregivers' HRQL. At the point at which mobility problems required wheelchair use caregivers reported better HRQL. CONCLUSIONS: The potential impact of caregiving on HRQL is an important consideration for economic evaluations. In relation to MS, the results suggest that caregiver's HRQL deteriorates as the people with MS lose functioning; thus treatments that delay loss of function may have a benefit for caregivers as well as patients.

Healthcare Costs and Utilization for Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in China: A National Claims Database Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) management in China from the patient's and the payer's perspective. METHODS: HCRU and medical costs (2017 US dollar [USD]) between January 1 and December 31, 2017, were extracted from the national medical insurance claims database, China Health Insurance Research Association (consisting of claims from all public health insurance schemes in China), for adults with ≥ 1 SLE-related claim. The main analysis group comprised all adults with an SLE diagnosis and claim during 2017 (overall group); the annual subgroup (SLE diagnosis and claim in January 2017) informed annual HCRU and costs. RESULTS: The overall group consisted of 3645 adults with ≥ 1 SLE-related claim. Outpatient visits constituted 86.9% of healthcare visits. SLE-related healthcare outpatient costs were USD 433 per outpatient, and inpatient costs were USD 2072 per inpatient. Medication costs accounted for 75.0% (USD 42/56) of total costs for outpatient visits and 44.3% (USD 456/1030) for inpatient hospitalizations. Notably, 35.4% of patients had a severe SLE flare; mean SLE-related cost per severe flare was USD 1616. HCRU and costs were similar in the annual subgroup. Female sex, SLE flares, tertiary hospitals, renal involvement, and utilization of anti-infective drugs were associated with higher SLE-related patient costs. CONCLUSIONS: SLE in China is associated with considerable HCRU and medical costs, especially for patients experiencing severe SLE flares. Preventing organ involvement, infections, flares, and associated hospitalizations may reduce the burden on patients and healthcare providers in China.

Development of a Conceptual Model to Understand Disease Burden in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Organ Damage.

Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage (OD). Data describing the patient burden of OD, as compared with SLE without OD, are limited. Objective: To develop a comprehensive conceptual model describing the burden experienced by patients living with SLE-associated OD. Methods: There were three phases to this qualitative study. First, a targeted literature review was conducted to inform a draft conceptual model. Second, key opinion leaders (KOLs) were interviewed to assess the draft conceptual model and help shape patient interview materials. Third, patients of different demographic backgrounds from across the United States were interviewed individually to gather their perspectives on living with SLE-associated OD. Data from concept elicitation interviews with KOLs and patients were coded and analyzed using NVivo software to identify the key concepts of the overall patient burden of SLE-associated OD. Findings from the KOL and patient interviews were used to finalize the conceptual model. Results: KOLs highlighted that SLE-associated OD carried a higher rate of mortality than SLE alone. Participants with SLE-associated OD (n = 40) experienced detrimental impacts across 4 areas of their lives: physical, cognitive, psychosocial functioning, and economic and work-related well-being. Physical impacts were described by all participants, often affecting their ability to perform everyday tasks. Many also described deterioration of cognitive functioning. Almost all participants experienced emotional impacts and challenges to their relationships and social lives resulting from living with SLE-associated OD. Additionally, SLE-associated OD imposed an economic burden including increased healthcare costs. SLE-associated OD had a more severe and debilitating impact on all aspects of the patient's quality of life than SLE prior to OD development, including further limitations in activities of daily living after the development of OD. Discussion: Study findings guided the development of a comprehensive conceptual model that fully represents the patient experience of living with SLE-associated OD, highlighting the additional burden of OD when compared with SLE alone. Conclusions: The conceptual model will inform improvements in disease management, which may result in better patient outcomes and aid development of clinical outcome assessments of disease burden.

Belimumab versus anifrolumab in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: an indirect comparison of clinical response at 52 weeks.

OBJECTIVE: To generate comparative efficacy evidence of belimumab versus anifrolumab in SLE that can inform treatment practices. METHODS: The SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response at 52 weeks of belimumab versus anifrolumab was evaluated with an indirect treatment comparison. The evidence base consisted of randomised trials that were compiled through a systemic literature review.A feasibility assessment was performed to comprehensively compare the eligible trials and to determine the most appropriate indirect treatment comparison analysis method. A multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR) was implemented that adjusted for differences across trials in four baseline characteristics: SLE Disease Activity Index-2K, anti-double-stranded DNA antibody positive, low complement (C)3 and low C4. Additional analyses were conducted to explore if the results were robust to different sets of baseline characteristics included for adjustment, alternative adjustment methods and changes to the trials included in the evidence base. RESULTS: The ML-NMR included eight trials: five belimumab trials (BLISS-52, BLISS-76, NEA, BLISS-SC, EMBRACE) and three anifrolumab trials (MUSE, TULIP-1, TULIP-2). Belimumab and anifrolumab were comparable in terms of SRI-4 response (OR (95% credible interval), 1.04 (0.74-1.45)), with the direction of the point estimate slightly favouring belimumab. Belimumab had a 0.58 probability of being the more effective treatment. The results were highly consistent across all analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the SRI-4 response of belimumab and anifrolumab are similar at 52 weeks in the general SLE population, but the level of uncertainty around the point estimate means we cannot rule out the possibility of a clinically meaningful benefit for either treatment. It remains to be seen if specific groups of patients could derive a greater benefit from anifrolumab or from belimumab, and there is certainly an unmet need to identify robust predictors towards more personalised selection of available biological agents in SLE.

Evaluating disease control following belimumab treatment in patients with SLE enrolled in the US OBSErve study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise disease control and remission in patients with SLE receiving belimumab for up to 12 months in the real world. METHODS: This post hoc analysis (GSK Study 213502) used data from the US evaluation Of use of Belimumab in clinical practice SEttings (OBSErve) study (GSK Study 117295), an observational cohort study of adults with SLE initiating and continuing belimumab for ≥6 months. Data were collected every 6 months by physician chart review; details of disease activity using the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-SLE Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) score were collected if routinely used by physicians. Disease control definitions evaluated were SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 at 12 months, SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid (prednisone equivalent) dose of ≤5 mg/day at 12 months, SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid dose of ≤5 mg/day at both 6 and 12 months. Disease remission definition was SELENA-SLEDAI score=0 at 12 months. Glucocorticoid dose during follow-up was quantified. RESULTS: US OBSErve enrolled 501 patients, 90 of whom had eligible SELENA-SLEDAI scores for inclusion in this analysis. Mean (SD) SELENA-SLEDAI scores were 13.1 (3.0) at baseline and 4.9 (3.4) at 12 months. Disease control at 12 months was achieved by 31.1% of patients when defined as a SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 (95% CI 21.8 to 41.7); this decreased to 25.6% when requiring a SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid dose of ≤5 mg/day (95% CI 16.9 to 35.8) and 17.8% when requiring a SELENA-SLEDAI score of ≤2 and glucocorticoid dose of ≤5 mg/day at both 6 and 12 months (95% CI 10.5 to 27.3). No patient achieved remission at 12 months. Glucocorticoids decreased from a baseline median of 20.0 mg/day (IQR 15.0-30.0) to 5.0 mg/day (IQR 0-10.0) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Improved disease control and reduced glucocorticoid use was achieved for a proportion of patients following up to 12 months of belimumab treatment in a US real-world setting.

Impact of Belimumab on Organ Damage in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

Organ damage is a key determinant of poor long-term prognosis and early death in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Prevention of damage is a key treatment goal of the 2019 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for SLE management. Belimumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits B lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) and is the only therapy approved for both SLE and lupus nephritis. Here, we review the clinical trial and real-world data on the effects of belimumab on organ damage in adult patients with SLE. Across 4 phase III studies, belimumab in combination with background SLE therapy demonstrated consistent reductions in key drivers of organ damage including disease activity, risk of new severe flares, and glucocorticoid exposure compared to background therapy alone. Long-term belimumab use in SLE also reduced organ damage progression measured by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index, as reported in open-label extension studies, and propensity score-matched comparative analyses to background therapy alone. Results from a clinical trial showed that in patients with active lupus nephritis, belimumab treatment improved renal response, reduced the risk of renal-related events, and impacted features related to kidney damage progression compared to background therapy alone. The decrease of organ damage accumulation observed with belimumab treatment in SLE, including lupus nephritis, suggest a disease-modifying effect.

A qualitative exploration of the patient experience of erosive and non-erosive hand osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with hand osteoarthritis (HOA) experience reduced health-related quality of life. This study sought to better understand the disease and treatment experience of individuals with HOA, explore any differences in experiences between erosive and non-erosive HOA sub-types, and evaluate content validity of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) in HOA. METHODS: Thirty subjects from the United States (n = 15 erosive HOA; n = 15 non-erosive HOA) participated in semi-structured interviews: concept elicitation explored symptoms/impacts important to patients; cognitive interviews assessed understanding and relevance of the MHQ. A sub-sample participated in real-time data capture (RTDC) activities via a smartphone/tablet app over 7 days. Verbatim transcripts were coded using Atlas.ti software and thematically analyzed. Concept saturation and MHQ content validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Most participants reported experiencing pain, swelling and stiffness, symptoms that most commonly had a direct impact on physical functioning. Substantial impacts on activities of daily living, emotional functioning, sleep and work were also reported. RTDC findings corroborated concept elicitation findings. There were no notable differences between erosive and non-erosive HOA, except nodules were reported more frequently in erosive disease. Most participants used analgesic treatments, but effects were short-lived. Pain was the symptom most frequently reported as most bothersome and important to treat. Concept saturation was achieved. MHQ items and instructions were well understood and relevant to most participants; stiffness and swelling were reported as important symptoms not included in the MHQ. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes key symptoms of HOA which are burdensome for patients and not well controlled by current therapies, highlighting an unmet treatment need. Although the study is limited by a small sample size that may not be representative of the broader erosive and non-erosive HOA population, concept saturation was achieved, and our findings suggest that disease experience is similar for patients with erosive and non-erosive HOA. Evaluation of stiffness and swelling items in conjunction with the MHQ may enhance relevance and improve measurement precision to assess important domains of HQRoL in an HOA population.

Development, psychometric evaluation and cognitive debriefing of the rheumatoid arthritis symptom and impact questionnaire (RASIQ).

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease often associated with persistent pain. There is a need for a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that is rooted in the patient experience and psychometrically validated. We describe the development of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Symptom and Impact Questionnaire (RASIQ), a novel PROM with potential to record key symptoms and impacts of RA with a 24-h recall period. RESULTS: A literature review identified RA concepts that patients considered most important to their disease experience, including pain, fatigue, joint swelling and stiffness. From this, an initial item pool (33 items; 27 related to symptoms, 6 related to impacts) was developed with a recall period of 24 h. Two rheumatologists evaluated each item's relevance, and the second version of the RASIQ was refined (29 items; 21 related to symptoms, 8 related to impacts). Next, three rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with patients with RA (n = 15 overall). The RASIQ was revised to remove items deemed irrelevant or redundant, leaving 16 items measuring symptoms (joint pain, energy/tiredness, joint stiffness) and impacts (rest, sleep). A parallel series of semi-structured concept elicitation interviews (n = 30) facilitated the design of a conceptual model of RA symptoms, impacts and treatment experiences. Post-hoc comparison of the model with RASIQ revealed that all items selected were among the most important and relevant symptoms and impacts for patients. A final round of cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 12) confirmed that the final 16-item RASIQ was relevant and easy to understand, with no further changes recommended. Psychometric evaluation using data from two Phase II RA clinical trials confirmed a 3-factor structure, as well as the reliability and validity of the scale scores, and the ability of RASIQ to detect changes in symptoms and impacts when administered at specific study timepoints, using a 24-h recall period. CONCLUSIONS: RASIQ is a novel, 16-item PROM developed with substantial patient input. Results from concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and psychometric evaluation confirmed the validity of the instrument, which has the potential to measure symptoms and impacts through a 24-h recall period and complement existing disease activity instruments with longer recall periods.

Exploration of the difference in results of economic submissions to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence by manufacturers and assessment groups.

OBJECTIVES: A recent study showed that estimates of cost-effectiveness submitted to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) by manufacturers had significantly lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) than those submitted by university-based Assessment Groups. This study extends that analysis. METHODS: Data were abstracted from relevant NICE documentation for thirty-two of eighty-two possible appraisals. RESULTS: The results from the analysis showed that sources of the difference in ICERs appear to be the effectiveness estimates relating to the comparator technology and the cost estimates relating to the technology under evaluation. That is, manufacturers estimated lower average benefits for the comparator technology and lower costs relating to the technology under evaluation compared with estimates submitted by the Assessment Groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may be particularly important, given the introduction of the "Single Technology Appraisal." Considerable difficulties were encountered when undertaking this study, highlighting, above all else, the complexity of explaining why results from economic evaluations purporting to answer the same question diverge.