Cost Savings and Waste Reduction Through Redispensing Unused Oral Anticancer Drugs: The ROAD Study.

Importance: New strategies targeting waste are required to improve financial and ecologic sustainability of expensive therapies, such as oral anticancer drugs, that frequently remain unused by patients. Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs seems to be a promising strategy when drug quality is guaranteed. Objectives: To determine the waste reduction and net cost savings attained by redispensing oral anticancer drugs that go unused by patients compared with the standard practice of disposal. Design, Settings, and Participants: The ROAD study was a prospective single-group intervention conducted in the outpatient pharmacies of 4 hospitals in the Netherlands from February 1, 2021, to February 1, 2023, with 12-month follow-up of each patient. Patients with cancer and who had a prescription for an oral anticancer drug that could be stored at room temperature were included. Of 2426 eligible patients, 602 did not consent and 601 did not respond. Data analyses were performed from August 25, 2022, to April 19, 2023. Intervention: Participants received oral anticancer drugs for use at home in special packaging (ie, sealed packaging with time-temperature indicator), to be returned to the pharmacy should these remain unused. The pharmacy ensured quality of returned drugs based on authenticity, appearance, remaining shelf life and adequate storage temperature. Drugs fulfilling quality requirements were redispensed to other patients. Main Outcome and Measure: Total waste reduction and mean net annual cost savings per patient compared with the standard practice of disposal. Optimization of cost savings was explored by introducing variations in the quality assurance procedure and patient population. All analyses used the average exchange rate for 2021 €1 = US $1.18. Results: Of 1223 patients with cancer who consented, 1071 participated (median [IQR] age, 70 [62-75] years; 622 [58.1%] were male). In all, 171 patients (16.0%; 95% CI, 13.8%-18.3%) returned 335 unused oral anticancer drug packages. Of the returned drugs, 228 packages were redispensed, which reduced waste by 68.1% (95% CI, 67.7%-68.5%) compared with the standard practice (disposal). Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs comprised 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.5%) of total drug costs, providing mean net annual cost savings of US $680 (95% CI, $524-$837) up to $1591 (95% CI, $1226-$2002) per participant. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this multicenter intervention study indicate that redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs is associated with waste reduction and cost savings, which in turn may improve the affordability and sustainability of cancer treatment. Trial Registration: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Identifier: NL9208.

Points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: results from an umbrella review and international Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Following EULAR procedures, an international task force was formed, consisting of 13 experts in rheumatology, epidemiology and pharmacology from seven European countries. Twelve strategies for cost-effective use of b/tsDMARDs were identified through individual and group discussion. For each strategy, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant English-language systematic reviews and, for six strategies, additionally for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirty systematic reviews and 21 RCTs were included. Based on the evidence, a set of overarching principles and points to consider was formulated by the task force using a Delphi procedure. Level of evidence (1a-5) and grade (A-D) were determined for each point to consider. Individual voting on the level of agreement (LoA; between 0 (completely disagree) and 10 (completely agree)) was performed anonymously. RESULTS: The task force agreed on five overarching principles. For 10 of 12 strategies, the evidence was sufficient to formulate one or more points to consider, leading to 20 in total, regarding response prediction, drug formulary use, biosimilars, loading doses, low-dose initial therapy, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, route of administration, medication adherence, disease activity-guided dose optimisation and non-medical drug switching. Ten points to consider (50%) were supported by level 1 or 2 evidence. The mean LoA (SD) varied between 7.9 (1.2) and 9.8 (0.4). CONCLUSION: These points to consider can be used in rheumatology practices and complement inflammatory rheumatic disease treatment guidelines to incorporate cost-effectiveness in b/tsDMARD treatment.

Feasibility of an Individualized Dispensing Program for Patients Prescribed Oral Anticancer Drugs to Prevent Waste.

PURPOSE: Waste of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs) causes financial and environmental burdens. This study evaluates the feasibility of an individualized dispensing program to prevent waste of OACDs. METHODS: Adult patients were dispensed individualized quantities of niraparib, abiraterone, enzalutamide, ruxolitinib, osimertinib, or imatinib as standard care, during the first 6 months of treatment. The first 50 patients participated in an feasibility evaluation conform five domains of Bowen's Framework. (1) implementation: reach (eligible patients included) and protocol fidelity (executions following protocol) assessed from pharmacy data, (2) acceptability: rated from 1 to 10 and agreement with theoretical framework acceptability domains via a survey among patients and pharmacy technicians, (3) practicality: program's costs, (4) effect: compared with previous practice (full package supply per month), defined as difference in unused OACD unit doses and net cost-savings, and (5) demand: potential scale-up of the program by including more OACDs. RESULTS: Participants' median age was 67 (interquartile range [IQR], 58-71) years, and 76% was male. (1) Implementation: reach and protocol fidelity were 89% and 90%, respectively. (2) Acceptability was high among patients (median, 9; IQR, 8-9) and pharmacy technicians (median, 7; IQR, 6-8). All acceptability domains were agreed on. (3) Practicality: program costs were €4,289. (4) Effect: unused OACD unit doses were reduced by 34%, causing net cost-savings of €693 per discontinued patient. (5) Demand: the program could be scaled up to seven times by including all OACDs. CONCLUSION: Individualized dispensing for patients prescribed OACDs is feasible for preventing waste in terms of implementation, acceptability, practicality, effect, and demand.

The added value of predictive biomarkers in treat-to-target strategies for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a conceptual modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the additional value of a hypothetical biomarker predicting response to treatment for RA regarding efficacy and costs by using a modelling design. METHODS: A Markov model was built comparing a usual care T2T strategy with a biomarker-steered strategy for RA patients starting biologic therapy. Outcome measures include time spent in remission or low disease activity (LDA) and costs. Four additional scenario analyses were performed by varying biomarker or clinical care characteristics: (i) costs of the biomarker; (ii) sensitivity and specificity of the biomarker; (iii) proportion of eligible patients tapering; and (iv) medication costs. RESULTS: In the base model, patients spent 2.9 months extra in LDA or remission in the biomarker strategy compared with usual care T2T over 48 months. Total costs were €43 301 and €42 568 for, respectively, the usual care and biomarker strategy, and treatment costs accounted for 91% of total costs in both scenarios. Cost savings were driven due to patients in the biomarker strategy experiencing remission or LDA earlier, and starting tapering sooner. Cost-effectiveness was not so much driven by costs or test characteristics of the biomarker (scenario 1/2), but rather by the level of early and proactive tapering and drug costs (scenarios 3/4). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a biomarker for prediction of response to b/tsDMARD treatment in RA can be of added value to current treat-to-target clinical care. However, gains in efficacy are modest and cost gains are depending on a combination of early proactive tapering and high medication costs.

Commentary on the EMA reflection paper on the pharmaceutical development of medicines for use in the older population.

Older people are often affected by impaired organ and bodily functions resulting in multimorbidity and polypharmacy, turning them into the main user group of many medicines. Very often, medicines have not specifically been developed for older people, causing practical medication problems for them like limited availability of easy to swallow formulations, easy to open packaging and dosing instructions for enteral administration. In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published a reflection paper 'Pharmaceutical development of medicines for use in the older population', which discusses how the emerging needs of an ageing European population can be addressed by medicines regulation. The paper intends to help industry to better consider the needs of older people during pharmaceutical/clinical medicines development by summarising data on the most relevant topics, providing early suggestions on how to move forward and prompting expert discussions and studies into knowledge gaps. Topics include patient acceptability, (dis)advantages of an administration route, formulation, dosage form, packaging, dosing device and user instruction. While the paper is directed at older people and the pharmaceutical industry, the reflections are also relevant to younger patients with similar disease-related needs and of value to other stakeholders parties, e.g., healthcare professionals, academics, patients and caregivers, as the paper makes clear what can be expected from industry and where collaborative work is needed. This commentary provides an overview of the different steps in the development of the reflection paper, discusses points considered most controversial and/or subject to (multidisciplinary) expert discussions and indicates their value for real world clinical practice.

Determinants of drug prices: a systematic review of comparison studies.

OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review on drug price comparison studies, we report on recent determinants of drug prices in a national and international context to facilitate regulation of drug prices by purchasers and policymakers worldwide. Determinants of drug prices were divided into non-modifiable and modifiable and were categorised as pertaining to a country's income level, pharmaceutical market system and its policies and government. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Determinants of drug prices or price variance. DESIGN: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed articles published between 2004 and 22 July 2020 that reported an association of the primary outcome with one or more determinants. We performed a best-evidence synthesis of these associations for determinants covered in at least three studies. RESULTS: 31 publications were included. Only one publication described net drug prices and 30 described retail drug prices. Five modifiable determinants were associated with lower retail prices: generic market portion, discounts, tendering policies, central (governmental) purchasing and pricing regulation schemes. The originators market portion and a system in which mark-ups are common were associated with higher retail prices. Retail prices were highest in the USA, even compared with other high-income countries. A positive association between national income level and drug retail prices could not be established among middle-income and high-income countries. Retail prices were highest in low-income countries when adjusted for purchasing power parity. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on determinants of net drug prices is extremely sparse. Various healthcare system interventions, market-specific and governmental regulations are consistently associated with lower retail prices. Some interventions are easily implementable in developing or middle-income countries, such as tendering, central purchasing and fixed pricing regulation schemes. Net drug price comparison studies are needed to overcome the lack of price transparency and to quantify the effectiveness of policy measures on net drug prices.

Pharmacogenomics guided versus standard antidepressant treatment in a community pharmacy setting: A randomized controlled trial.

The literature on pharmacogenomics as a tool to support antidepressant precision is burgeoning. Recently, a more active role has been argued for pharmacists in pharmacogenomic testing, with both pharmacists and family physicians perceiving pharmacist-led testing as a valuable method by which to scale this innovation for depression treatment. In this prospective, single-blind randomized controlled design, we evaluated the impact of pharmacogenomics guided versus standard antidepressant treatment of depression and anxiety, implemented in three large community pharmacies. Participants were 213 outpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder and/or generalized anxiety disorder, randomized to receive pharmacogenomics guided (n = 105) or standard antidepressant treatment (n = 108); participants were blinded to the study. Patient reported outcomes of depression, anxiety, disability, and treatment satisfaction were assessed at months 0, 1, 3, and 6. Hypotheses were investigated using mixed effect models on the full data. All clinical outcomes improved significantly. The primary outcome (depression) and two secondary outcomes (generalized anxiety and disability) exhibited significant time by group interactions indicating that they improved for participants who received pharmacogenomics guided treatment more so than they did for participants who received standard treatment. Treatment satisfaction improved similarly for both groups. Results contribute to a growing body of work evaluating the impact of pharmacogenomics testing to inform antidepressant medication treatment for depression and anxiety, and provides important initial evidence for the role of pharmacists in care delivery. Pharmacogenomic testing may be a valuable tool to allow pharmacists to more effectively collaborate in facilitating clinical treatment decisions. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: (NCT03591224).

2020 EULAR points to consider for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to treatment in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases for use in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. METHODS: An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients' needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

The pharmacological and clinical aspects behind dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs): rationale and systematic narrative review of clinical evidence.

BACKGROUND: Dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) is performed to achieve steady state drug concentrations earlier after treatment start compared to dosing regimens without loading. Although loading inherently results in increased costs, treatment targets in terms of reduced disease activity may be achieved at an earlier state. It is an interesting topic that, surprisingly, has not received much attention in literature. METHODS: In this review, we aimed at providing a theoretical description of the pharmacodynamic / -kinetic rationale for dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs and to systematically review the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of dose loading on disease activity in AIRDs. RESULTS: Only a small number of studies (n = 5) has been published comparing the effectiveness of dose loading versus a regimen without dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs, addressing abatacept (n = 2), certolizumab pegol (n = 1), and secukinumab (n = 2). These studies provide insufficient evidence on superiority of dose loading in terms of disease activity compared to a dosing regimen without loading, while safety issues might be comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Although dose loading is commonly adopted for several bDMARDs in AIRDs, scientific evidence on its effectiveness and safety is surprisingly scarce and does not suggest superiority compared to a regimen without dose loading. More research in this field, also with regard to the pharmaco-economic consequences of dose loading, is urgently needed.

Interventions to support shared decision making for medication therapy in long term conditions: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To examine the effectiveness of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) for medication therapy in long term conditions on patient outcomes; 2) to identify characteristics of SDM interventions that are associated with positive patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials up to February 2019. A best evidence synthesis was performed. Intervention characteristics that are likely to be associated with positive patient outcomes were identified using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles reporting 23 studies were included. Seventeen patient outcomes were assessed using a variety of measurement instruments. There was evidence for a positive effect of SDM interventions on risk estimation and involvement in decision making. Evidence for no effect was found on four outcomes (e.g. medication adherence) and conflicting evidence on ten outcomes (e.g. decisional conflict). Electronically delivered SDM interventions and those comprising value clarification exercises were likely to be associated with positive patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of evidence for a positive effect of SDM interventions on the majority of patient outcomes. The mode and content of SDM interventions seem to affect patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for standardization of patient outcomes and measurement instruments to evaluate SDM interventions.

Shared decision making in routine clinical care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an assessment of audio-recorded consultations.

OBJECTIVES: Although shared decision making (SDM) is advocated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, it is largely unclear when, how and to what extent SDM is applied in routine clinical care of patients with RA. This study aimed to investigate the level of SDM in RA treatment from an observer perspective and to assess associations between the level of SDM and characteristics of the clinician, patient and consultation. METHODS: The level of SDM was investigated by scoring audio-recordings of 168 routine consultations with unique patients with the observer patient involvement (OPTION) scale (scale 0-100, higher OPTION scores indicating higher levels of SDM). Associations between the level of SDM and characteristics of the clinician, patient and consultation were assessed using multilevel modelling. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: The mean OPTION score was 28.3 (SD=15.1). The multilevel model included four characteristics: clinician age, patient age, consultation duration and type of treatment decision. There were significant, positive associations between the level of SDM and the consultation duration (b=0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.11), decision for stopping and/or starting medication (b=14.30, 95% CI 5.62 to 22.98), decision for adjusting medication doses (b=8.36, 95% CI 3.92 to 12.81) and decision for administering single dose glucocorticoids (b=15.03, 95% CI 9.12 to 20.93). Thus, a higher level of SDM was significantly associated with a longer consultation duration and the type of treatment decision. No other significant associations were found. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the level of SDM in RA treatment leaves room for improvement. To foster SDM in routine clinical care, training programmes on patient-centred communication skills may be helpful.

Economic impact of Patient's Own Medication use during hospitalisation: a multicentre pre-post implementation study.

Background Medication is frequently thrown away after a patient's discharge from hospital, with undesirable economic and environmental consequences. Because of the rising costs of healthcare, interventions to reduce medication wastage (and associated costs) are warranted. Using Patient's Own Medication during hospitalisation might decrease medication wastage and associated costs. Objective To study the economic impact of patient's own medication use on medication waste and hospital staff's time spent during hospitalisation. Setting In seven Dutch hospitals, of which university, teaching, general, and specialised hospitals, eight different hospital wards, surgical and medical, were selected. Method In this prospective pre-post intervention study data on the economic value of medication waste and time spent by healthcare professionals were collected for a 2 months period each. The economic value of medication waste was defined as the value (€) of wasted medication per 100 patient days. For each ward, time spent on medication process activities was measured 10 times per staff member. The average time spent (in hours) on medication process steps (multiple activities) per staff member per 100 patients and associated salary costs were calculated for both periods. Main outcome measure The primary outcome of the study was the total economic value (€) of wasted medication per 100 patient days. Results Implementation of Patient's Own Medication decreased the economic value of wasted medication by 39.5% from €3983 to €2411 per 100 patient days. The mean time spent on the total medication process was reduced with 5.2 h per 100 patients (from 112.7 to 104.4 h per 100 patients). We observed a shift in professional activities, as physicians and nurses spent less time on the medication process, whereas pharmacy technicians had a greater role in it. When time spent was expressed as salary; €1219 could be saved per 100 patients. Conclusions This study showed that 'Patient's Own Medication' implementation may have a positive economic impact, as the value of medication waste decreases, hospital staff devoted less time on the medication process, and staff deployment is more efficient.

Willingness of patients to use unused medication returned to the pharmacy by another patient: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Redispensing by pharmacies of medication unused by another patient could contribute to optimal use of healthcare resources. This study aimed to assess patient willingness to use medication returned by another patient and patient characteristics associated with this willingness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A total of 41 community and 5 outpatient pharmacies in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Total of 2215 pharmacy visitors. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients completed a questionnaire regarding their willingness to use medication returned unused to the pharmacy by another patient, assuming quality was guaranteed. Secondary outcome measures included patient sociodemographic characteristics that were associated with patient willingness, analysed using logistic regression analysis and reported as ORs with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 2215 patients (mean (SD) age 50.6(18.0) years; 61.4% female), 61.2% were willing to use medication returned unused to the pharmacy by another patient. Patients who were unwilling mostly found it risky. Men were more willing to use returned medication (OR 1.3 95% CI 1.1 to 1.6), as did patients with a high educational level (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.3 to 2.5), those who regularly use 1-3 medications (OR 1.3 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7), those who returned medication to the pharmacy for disposal (OR 1.5 95% CI 1.0 to 2.3) and those who ever had unused medication themselves (OR 1.3 95% CI 1.1 to 1.6)). Patients with non-Dutch cultural background were less willing to use returned medication (OR 0.395% CI 0.3 to 0.4)). CONCLUSIONS: When quality is guaranteed, a substantial proportion of patients are willing to use medication returned unused to the pharmacy by another patient. This suggests that implementation of redispensing may be supported by patients.

What does it cost to redispense unused medications in the pharmacy? A micro-costing study.

BACKGROUND: Redispensing unused medications that have been returned to outpatient pharmacies by patients may reduce waste and healthcare costs. However, little is known regarding the extra costs associated with this process, nor the price level of medications for which this is economically beneficial. The objective of this study was to assess costs associated with redispensing unused medications in the pharmacy and the price level at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial. METHODS: A micro-costing study was conducted in four Dutch outpatient pharmacies for medications requiring room-temperature storage and requiring refrigeration. First, the pharmacy's necessary additional process steps and resources for redispensing were identified. Second, time required for each process step was simulated. Third, required resources were quantified by calculating labour, purchasing and overhead costs. Lastly, a model with different scenarios was constructed to calculate the price of a medication package at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial. RESULTS: Three main additional process steps for redispensing were identified: (1) pack medications with product quality indicators before dispensing, (2) assess quality of medications returned to the pharmacy (temperature storage, package integrity, expiry date) and (3a) restock medications fulfilling quality criteria or (3b) dispose of medications not fulfilling criteria. Total time required for all steps up to restock one medication package was on average 5.3 (SD ±0.3) and 6.8 (SD ±0.3) minutes for medications stored at room-temperature and under refrigeration, respectively, and associated costs were €5.54 and €7.61. Similar outcomes were found if a medication package would ultimately be disposed of. The price level primarily depended upon the proportion of dispensed packages returned unused to the pharmacy and fulfilling the quality criteria: if 5% is returned, of which 60% fulfils quality criteria, the price level was €101 per package for medications requiring room-temperature storage and €215 per package for those requiring refrigeration. However, if 10% is returned, of which 60% fulfils the quality criteria, the price level decreases to €53 and €109, respectively (arbitrary proportions). CONCLUSIONS: Redispensing unused medications in the pharmacy is at least cost-beneficial if applied to expensive medications.

Barriers and facilitators with medication use during the transition from hospital to home: a qualitative study among patients.

BACKGROUND: During transitions from hospital to home, up to half of all patients experience medication-related problems, such as adverse drug events. To reduce these problems, knowledge of patient experiences with medication use during this transition is needed. This study aims to identify the perspectives of patients on barriers and facilitators with medication use, during the transition from hospital to home. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in 2017 among patients discharged from two hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide. Patients were asked to identify all barriers they experienced with medication use during transitions from hospital to home, and facilitators needed to overcome those barriers. Data were analyzed following thematic content analysis and visualized using an "Ishikawa" diagram. RESULTS: In total, three focus groups were conducted with 19 patients (mean age: 70.8 (SD 9.3) years, 63% female). Three barriers were identified; lack of personalized care in the care continuum, insufficient information transfer (e.g. regarding changes in pharmacotherapy), and problems in care organization (e.g. medication substitution). Facilitators to overcome these barriers included a personal medication-counselor in the care continuum to guide patients with medication use and overcome communication barriers, and post-discharge follow-up care (e.g. home visits from healthcare providers). CONCLUSIONS: During transitions from hospital to home patients experience individual-, healthcare provider- and organization level barriers. Future research should focus on personal-medication counselors in the care continuum and post-discharge follow-up care as it may overcome communication, emotional, information and organization barriers with medication use.

Ultra-low dose of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A standard low-dosing schedule of rituximab (RTX; 2 × 500 mg or 1 × 1000 mg) is as effective for active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as the registered dose (2 × 1000 mg). Moreover, several small uncontrolled studies suggest that even lower-dosed treatment with RTX also leads to good treatment response in patients with RA. Retreatment with such an 'ultra-low' dose RTX in patients who responded well to RTX induction treatment is of special interest, as long-term use of lower RTX doses may lead to shorter infusion duration, lower risk of adverse events and lower costs. However, the effect of ultra-low dose of RTX has not been investigated using a controlled trial of proper design and dimensions. METHODS/DESIGN: REDO is an investigator driven six-month pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial on the effects of ultra-low-dose RTX (1 × 500 or 1 × 200 mg) compared to standard low dose (1 × 1000 mg) in RA patients who are being retreated with RTX. A total of 140 RA patients, having reached low disease activity (DAS28CRP < 2.9) after the previous RTX infusion and DAS28CRP < 3.5 at moment of retreatment, are randomised in a ratio of 1:2:2 to 1 × 1000 mg, 1 × 500 mg or 1 × 200 mg. The primary objective is testing non-inferiority of the ultra-low-dose vs. standard low-dose RTX, by comparing mean change in DAS28CRP from baseline to six months to the non-inferiority margin of 0.6. Secondary outcomes over the same period are: function; quality of life; safety; costs; and pharmacokinetics and dynamics as process measures. DISCUSSION: This study protocol shares characteristics of both early dose finding trials as well as late pragmatic clinical studies. Several choices in the design of this trial are described and possible consequences for RA treatment and expected biosimilar introduction are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR6117 . Registered on 15 November 2016 (CMO NL57520.091.16 , 8 November 2016).

Does non-adherence to DMARDs influence hospital-related healthcare costs for early arthritis in the first year of treatment?

INTRODUCTION: Non-adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is suspected to relate to health care costs. In this study we investigated this relation in the first year of treatment. METHODS: In a multi-center cohort study with a one year follow up, non-adherence was continuously measured using electronic monitored medication jars. Non-adherence was defined as the number of days with a negative difference between expected and observed opening of the container. Cost measurement focused on hospital costs in the first year: consultations, emergency room visits, hospitalization, medical procedures, imaging modalities, medication costs, and laboratory tests. Cost volumes were registered from patient medical files. We applied multivariate regression analyses for the association between non-adherence and costs, and other variables (age, sex, center, baseline disease activity, diagnosis, socioeconomic status, anxiety and depression) and costs. RESULTS: Of the 275 invited patients, 206 were willing to participate. 74.2% had rheumatoid arthritis, 20.9% had psoriatic arthritis and 4.9% undifferentiated arthritis. 23.7% of the patients were more than 20% non-adherent over the follow-up period. Mean costs are € 2117.25 (SD € 3020.32). Non-adherence was positively related to costs in addition to baseline anxiety. CONCLUSION: Non-adherence is associated with health care costs in the first year of treatment for arthritis. This suggests that improving adherence is not only associated with better outcome, but also with savings.

Disease activity-guided dose optimisation of adalimumab and etanercept is a cost-effective strategy compared with non-tapering tight control rheumatoid arthritis care: analyses of the DRESS study.

BACKGROUND: A disease activity-guided dose optimisation strategy of adalimumab or etanercept (TNFi (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors)) has shown to be non-inferior in maintaining disease control in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with usual care. However, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is still unknown. METHOD: This is a preplanned cost-effectiveness analysis of the Dose REduction Strategy of Subcutaneous TNF inhibitors (DRESS) study, a randomised controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial performed in two Dutch rheumatology outpatient clinics. Patients with low disease activity using TNF inhibitors were included. Total healthcare costs were measured and quality adjusted life years (QALY) were based on EQ5D utility scores. Decremental cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using bootstrap analyses; incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) was used to express cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: 180 patients were included, and 121 were allocated to the dose optimisation strategy and 59 to control. The dose optimisation strategy resulted in a mean cost saving of -€12 280 (95 percentile -€10 502; -€14 104) per patient per 18 months. There is an 84% chance that the dose optimisation strategy results in a QALY loss with a mean QALY loss of -0.02 (-0.07 to 0.02). The decremental cost-effectiveness ratio (DCER) was €390 493 (€5 085 184; dominant) of savings per QALY lost. The mean iNMB was €10 467 (€6553-€14 037). Sensitivity analyses using 30% and 50% lower prices for TNFi remained cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Disease activity-guided dose optimisation of TNFi results in considerable cost savings while no relevant loss of quality of life was observed. When the minimal QALY loss is compensated with the upper limit of what society is willing to pay or accept in the Netherlands, the net savings are still high. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3216; Post-results.

Disease activity guided dose reduction and withdrawal of adalimumab or etanercept compared with usual care in rheumatoid arthritis: open label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a disease activity guided strategy of dose reduction of two tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, adalimumab or etanercept, is non-inferior in maintaining disease control in patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with usual care. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, open label, non-inferiority strategy trial. SETTING: Two rheumatology outpatient clinics in the Netherlands, from December 2011 to May 2014. PARTICIPANTS: 180 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and low disease activity using adalimumab or etanercept; 121 allocated to the dose reduction strategy, 59 to usual care. INTERVENTIONS: Disease activity guided dose reduction (advice to stepwise increase the injection interval every three months, until flare of disease activity or discontinuation) or usual care (no dose reduction advice). Flare was defined as increase in DAS28-CRP (a composite score measuring disease activity) greater than 1.2, or increase greater than 0.6 and current score of at least 3.2. In the case of flare, TNF inhibitor use was restarted or escalated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in proportions of patients with major flare (DAS28-CRP based flare longer than three months) between the two groups at 18 months, compared against a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Secondary outcomes included TNF inhibitor use at study end, functioning, quality of life, radiographic progression, and adverse events. RESULTS: Dose reduction of adalimumab or etanercept was non-inferior to usual care (proportion of patients with major flare at 18 months, 12% v 10%; difference 2%, 95% confidence interval -12% to 12%). In the dose reduction group, TNF inhibitor use could successfully be stopped in 20% (95% confidence interval 13% to 28%), the injection interval successfully increased in 43% (34% to 53%), but no dose reduction was possible in 37% (28% to 46%). Functional status, quality of life, relevant radiographic progression, and adverse events did not differ between the groups, although short lived flares (73% v 27%) and minimal radiographic progression (32% v 15%) were more frequent in dose reduction than usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A disease activity guided, dose reduction strategy of adalimumab or etanercept to treat rheumatoid arthritis is non-inferior to usual care with regard to major flaring, while resulting in the successful dose reduction or stopping in two thirds of patients.Trial registration Dutch trial register (www.trialregister.nl), NTR 3216.