Cost of biologics in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a factor not to be overlooked.

Biologics are a promising treatment option for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) but drug costs are very high compared to conventional treatment. From a socioeconomic view the additional costs of new interventions should be weighed against their incremental health benefits compared to standard care. Therefore we evaluated data on cost-effectiveness of biologics in JIA. We searched Medline, Embase, and The York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant literature. Current data show that biologics are reducing direct and indirect healthcare costs if one excludes the costs of the drug itself. The costs of biologics are more than ten times as high as conventional drug treatment. As a result of limited data, no comparison on cost-effectiveness between biologics could be performed. Although data on long-term cost-effectiveness of biologics are lacking, the expectation is that they will be cost-effective in the long-term. The idea behind this is that biologic treatment should be administered to patients that without these drugs would incur high direct and indirect costs due to continuous severe disease resulting in irreversible disabilities. In our opinion the best cost benefit could be gained if these patients receive biologic treatment introduced early in the disease. This is in order to minimize irreversible damage to the joints and minimize need for long-term biologic therapy by early suppression of the disease. To support these hypotheses future research is needed on long-term cost-effectiveness of all biologics used in JIA.

An analysis of the costs and treatment success of etanercept in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children register.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse and report the costs and effects of etanercept therapy in patients with JIA. METHODS: Forty-nine JIA patients were evaluated by means of the JIA core set at the start of etanercept and after 3, 15 and 27 months of therapy. At the same time-points, parents of the patients were asked to complete the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3). Direct medical costs were collected for 1 year before and 27 months after the start of etanercept and compared with gain in utility. RESULTS: Mean total direct medical costs after the start of etanercept were on average 12 478 euros per patient-year compared with 3720 euros before start. The cost analysis showed that three-quarters of total direct medical costs were from etanercept itself. Other direct medical costs, such as costs concerning hospitalization and concomitant medication, decreased compared with the costs in the period before start of etanercept. Especially a great reduction of consultations at the outpatient clinic was seen. Utility was 0.53 before start of etanercept, according to the multi-attribute utility function of the HUI3 on a scale from 0 (dead) to 1 (perfect health). After 27 months, utility was 0.78. In accordance, also all JIA core set response variables improved significantly over 27 months of etanercept treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although costs of etanercept therapy are substantial, the gain in utility is even more impressive. Considering that these JIA patients were previously refractory to conventional treatment including MTX, and were at risk of long-time disability and pain, costs are justifiable.

Development of a digital Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire for systematic monitoring of disease activity in daily practice.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable and user-friendly digital Childhood HAQ (CHAQ) to facilitate systematic monitoring of disease activity at the outpatient clinic in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. METHODS: The digital CHAQ was tested with patients who visited the outpatient paediatric rheumatology clinic of the Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital. These patients completed in a randomized order the paper form and digital CHAQ while being observed. Validity was tested by comparing outcomes with the paper form CHAQ. User-friendliness was evaluated through a short questionnaire. RESULTS: A digital CHAQ was developed and revised several times according to our observations. Outcome is automatically calculated and can be printed. Fifty-one patients completed both the digital and paper form CHAQ. Correlation coefficient between both outcomes of the CHAQ Disability Index was 0.974. No statistically significantly differences in median outcome were found in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain (25.6 vs 25.9 mm) and VAS well-being (20.1 vs 19.5 mm). Although the mean time (5.06 min) to complete the digital CHAQ was significantly longer than the mean time (3.75 min) to complete the paper form, the majority of patients (75%) preferred the digital version. User-friendliness received maximum positive score. CONCLUSION: We developed a reliable and user-friendly digital CHAQ, which can be easily and systematically completed during routine clinic visits. Such digitalization of questionnaires can be applied in any field to make systematic monitoring of disease activity in daily practice possible.