Cost-consequence of abatacept as first-line therapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients using IORRA real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) as first-line (1L) therapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using data from the Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis database. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the cost per American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% improvement (ACR50) responder and per patient in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission from a Japanese healthcare payers' perspective over a 2-year time horizon. Clinical characteristics of patients on ABA-1L were matched with those of patients on ABA second or later line (2L+) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-1L directly or using propensity scores. Resource utilisation and medical costs were calculated from the Japan Medical Data Center claims database. Parameter uncertainty was addressed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses (age, treatment duration, Japanese version of Health Assessment Questionnaire [J-HAQ] score). RESULTS: Incremental costs per member per month (ΔPMPM) for ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L and ABA-2L+ were -1,571 Japanese Yen (JPY) and 81 JPY, respectively. For ABA-1L versus TNFi-1L, ΔPMPM by ACR50 response was -11,715 JPY and by CDAI and SDAI remission 11,602 JPY and 47,003 JPY, respectively. Corresponding costs for ABA-1L were lower for all outcome parameters versus those for ABA-2L+. Scenario analyses showed that ABA-1L was cost-effective over TNFi-1L in patients <65 years for any outcome. Furthermore, ABA-1L was cost-effective over ABA-2L+ for all outcomes in patients with age <65 years, disease duration <5 years and J-HAQ ≥1.5. CONCLUSIONS: ABA-1L demonstrated a favourable cost-effectiveness profile in RA patients, accruing savings for the Japanese healthcare payers.

Assessment of the effectiveness of golimumab 50-mg and 100-mg regimens in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in daily practice.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of the golimumab (GLM) 50-mg and 100-mg regimens in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily practice. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed RA patients who started GLM between September 2011 and July 2012. Patients were divided into three groups: a 50-mg group; a 50/100-mg group (had a dose increase to 100 mg); and a 100-mg group (started GLM at 100 mg). We assessed Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) and treatment continuation rate. Risk factors associated with time to discontinuation of the 50-mg regimen were determined with proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: We analyzed 74 patients: 43 in the 50-mg group, 23 in the 50/100-mg group, and 8 in the 100-mg group. DAS28 improved from 4.0 ± 1.0, 4.8 ± 1.0, and 4.7 ± 1.9, respectively, at baseline to 2.4 ± 1.2, 3.3 ± 1.5, and 2.5 ± 0.7, respectively, at week 52. Treatment continuation rates at week 52 were 73.7%, 60.9%, and 87.5%, respectively. In the 50/100-mg group, the mean DAS28 improved significantly from 4.4 ± 1.2 before to 3.6 ± 1.3 12 weeks after the dose increase. Oral corticosteroid therapy ≥ 5 mg/day, previous use of two biologic agents, and DAS28 > 5.1 at initiation of GLM were significantly associated with discontinuation of the 50-mg regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Both GLM 50-mg and 100-mg regimens are effective in patients with RA in daily practice.