One-year direct costs of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and its predictive factors: data from the Moroccan RBSMR registry.

The aim of the study was to estimate the annual direct costs of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to establish possible factors associated with those costs. The main data source was the Moroccan registry of biological therapies in rheumatic diseases (RBSMR Registry). We included patients with available 1-year data. Variables related to socio-economic status, disease and biological therapy were collected. Direct costs included prices of biologics, costs of infusions, and subcutaneous injections. Differences in costs across groups were tested by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Correlations analysis was performed in search of factors associated with high costs. We included 197 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The mean age was 52.3 ± 11 years, with female predominance 86.8%. Receiving one of the following therapies: rituximab (n = 132), tocilizumab (n = 37), or TNF-blockers (n = 28). Median one-year direct costs per patient were €1665 [€1472-€9879]. The total annual direct costs were € 978,494. Rituximab, constituted 25.7% of the total annual budget. TNF-blockers and tocilizumab represented 27.3% and 47% of this overall budget, respectively. Although the costs were not significantly different in terms of gender or level of study, the insurance type significantly affected the cost estimation. A positive correlation was found between the annual direct cost and body mass index (r = 0.15, p = 0.04). In Morocco, a developing country, the annual direct costs of biological therapy are high. Our results may contribute to the development of strategies for better governance of these costs.

Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Biological Treatment Sequences for Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Previously Treated with Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review (SLR) had two objectives: to analyse published economic evaluations of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously treated with DMARDs and to assess the quality of those that included sequences of treatments. METHODS: We performed an SLR on PubMed, Central, Cochrane, and French databases from January 2000 to December 2018. The search focused on cost-effectiveness/utility/benefit analyses. We extracted data on treatment sequences, outcomes (e.g. quality-adjusted life year) and choices of economic evaluation methods (e.g. model type, type of analysis, and method of utility estimation). We analysed the improvement of methods by comparing two sub-periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2018). The quality of reporting and the quality of the methods were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and a set of eight key aspects for a reference case for economic evaluation of bDMARDs based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) and Drummond checklists. Data extraction and study assessment were performed independently by two health economists. RESULTS: From the 824 records identified in the initial search, 51 publications were selected. Of these, 31 included sequences. Individual models such as discrete-event simulations were used in over two-fifths (22/51, 43%) of the selected studies. Few studies (7/51, 14%) used utility scores based on generic instruments (e.g. EQ-5D). Estimation of hospitalization costs was described in only approximately one-third of studies (19/51). Loss of quality of life (QoL) related to adverse events such as tuberculosis and pneumonia was included in one-tenth (5/51, 10%) of the studies. It was difficult to compare the results of the economic evaluations (i.e. incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) due to the high heterogeneity of studies in terms of disease stage, data sources, inputs, and methods of health outcome assessment used. For identified studies including sequences, the CHEERS assessment of reporting quality showed insufficient reporting of uncertainty analyses and utility weights in more than a third of the studies (11/31, 35%; 9/25, 36%). An in-depth assessment of the quality of the studies revealed that only seven, mostly conducted during the sub-period 2010-2018, addressed the majority of methodological quality assessment issues such as the simulation of patient sequence pathways, the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of comparative effectiveness, the choice of treatment sequence, and rules for switching. CONCLUSION: Our SLR identified a lack of high-quality evaluations assessing bDMARD sequences, although some improvements were made in the reporting and modelling of patients' pathways in studies published after 2010. In order to improve economic evaluations of RA, clear health technology assessment guidance on RA health-related QoL instruments must be provided, and data including long-term disease progression must be made available.

Cost-utility analysis of de-escalating biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Recent guideline updates have suggested de-escalating DMARDs when patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieve remission or low disease activity. We aim to evaluate whether it is cost-effective to de-escalate the biological form of DMARDs (bDMARDs). METHODS: Using a Markov model, we performed a cost-utility analysis for RA patients on bDMARD treatment. We compared continuing treatment (standard care) to a tapering approach (i.e., an immediate 50% dose reduction), withdrawal (i.e., an immediate 100% dose reduction) and tapering followed by withdrawal of bDMARDs. The parametrization is based on a comprehensive literature review. Results were computed for 30 years with a cycle length of three months. We applied the payer's perspective for Germany and conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Tapering or withdrawing bDMARD treatment resulted in ICERs of €526,254 (incr. costs -78,845, incr. QALYs -0.1498) or €216,879 (incr. costs -€121,691, incr. QALYs -0.5611) compared to standard care. Tapering followed by withdrawal resulted in a loss of 0.4354 QALYs and savings of €107,969 per patient, with an ICER of €247,987. Deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that our results remained largely unaffected by parameter changes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that tapering, withdrawal and tapering followed by withdrawal were dominant in 39.8%, 28.2% and 29.0% of 10,000 iterations. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that de-escalating bDMARDs in patients with RA may result in high cost savings but also a decrease in quality of life compared to standard care. If decision makers choose to implement de-escalation in daily practice, our results suggest the tapering approach.

Economic Evaluation of Anticyclic Citrullinated Peptide Positivity in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity may be a strong predictor of joint erosion and a potential biomarker for guiding treatment decisions for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, limited studies are currently available on the effect of anti-CCP positivity on health care utilization and/or medical costs of RA patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate short-term and long-term direct health care expenditures associated with anti-CCP positivity in newly diagnosed RA patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult RA patients within a U.S. integrated health care delivery system (January 1, 2007-June 30, 2015). Patients were required to have 2 RA diagnoses and treatment with a conventional or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) within 12 months. The first RA diagnosis date was labeled as the index date, and patients were followed until they left the health plan, died, or reached the end of the study period. Patient demographics, anti-CCP results, comorbid conditions, and health care resource utilization during baseline (12 months before the index date) and follow-up periods were collected. Nationally recognized direct medical costs were assigned to health care utilization to calculate health care costs in 2015 U.S. dollars. The baseline differences between anti-CCP positivity and negativity and differences in censoring during follow-up were addressed using propensity scores. The mean differences in costs were estimated using recycled prediction methods. RESULTS: 2,448 newly diagnosed RA patients were identified and followed for a median of 3.7 years (range = 1-8 years). At baseline, 65.8% of patients were anti-CCP positive. Anti-CCP-positive patients had fewer comorbid conditions at baseline. During the first 12 months of follow-up, median (interquartile range) total health care expenditures for anti-CCP-positive and anti-CCP-negative patients were $6,200 ($3,563-$13,260) and $7,022 ($3,885-$12,995), respectively. After adjusting for baseline differences, total incremental mean cost associated with anti-CCP positivity during the first 12 months was estimated to be $2,163 per patient (P = 0.001). The annual incremental costs in anti-CCP-positive patients became progressively larger over time, from $2,163 during the first year to $5,062 during the fourth year. Anti-CCP positivity was associated with higher prescription, laboratory testing, and rheumatologist utilization. A higher percentage of anti-CCP-positive patients received 1 or more biologic DMARDs (11.6% for anti-CCP-positive vs. 5.7% for anti-CCP negative; P < 0.001) compared with anti-CCP-negative patients during the 12-month follow-up, which resulted in $2,499 in incremental prescription costs (P < 0.001). Total additional burden associated with anti-CCP positivity during the first 4 years was estimated to be $14,089 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In newly diagnosed RA patients, higher economic burden associated with anti-CCP positivity was mainly driven by prescription costs. DISCLOSURES: This research and manuscript were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). Alemao and Connolly are employees and shareholders of BMS and participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, review/revision of the manuscript, and approval of the final version of the manuscript. An and Cheetham received a grant from BMS for this research. At the time of this study, An was employed by Western University of Health Sciences, and Cheetham was employed by Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Bider-Canfield, Kang, and Lin have nothing to disclose. Some study results were presented as a poster at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Meeting; November 5, 2017; San Diego, CA, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Meeting; May 19, 2018; Baltimore, MD.

Cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in Singapore. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy to land-based therapy over 3 months from societal perspective. Target population comprised patients with low back pain (LBP), osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). Subgroup analyses were carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy in individual MSDs. Relative treatment effects were obtained through a systematic review of published data. RESULTS: Compared to land-based therapy, hydrotherapy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD 27 471 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 70 000 per QALY (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). For the respective MSDs, hydrotherapy were dominant (more effective and less costly) in THR and TKR, cost-effective for LBP and RA, and not cost-effective for OA. Treatment adherence and cost of hydrotherapy were key drivers to the ICER values. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrotherapy was a cost-effective rehabilitation compared to land-based therapy for a population with MSDs in Singapore. However, the benefit of hydrotherapy was not observed in patients with OA.

Comparison of outpatient reimbursement for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and rheumatoid arthritis treatment in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared Taiwanese public health insurance outpatient reimbursements for interstitial cystitis (IC)/bladder pain syndrome (BPS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. METHODS: This observational study used data from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database between 2002 and 2013. Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for IC/BPS and RA were selected and matched in a ratio of 1 : 5 based on index year. After adjustment for possible confounders, including age, sex, income, hospital levels of care, and reimbursements for 24 comorbidities, yearly and per-visit pharmacy, non-pharmacy, and total claims were determined. RESULTS: In all, 1438 IC/BPS and 7190 RA patients were identified in the database. IC/BPS patients were significantly younger, and the proportion of females in this group was higher. Income levels were lower in the IC/BPS cohort, but not significantly. There were no significant differences between cohorts in terms of reimbursements for treatment for comorbidities, with the exception of end-stage renal disease, for which reimbursement was higher in the RA cohort. After adjusting for confounders, the regression coefficient for IC/BPS to RA was significantly lower for yearly total pharmacy claims, yearly total claims, per-visit pharmacy claims, and total claims per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient reimbursement was significantly lower for IC/BPS than for RA treatment, primarily with regard to pharmacy costs. This indicates less medical utilization for IC/BPS, possibly due to poor treatment outcomes and copayment polices. Further advances in the treatment of IC/BPS and health budget reallocation are encouraged.

Health care utilization and expenditures among adults with rheumatoid arthritis using specialty pharmaceuticals.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rising popularity of using specialty medications for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), little is known about the use or spending on medical services among these patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate health care utilization and expenditures among patients with RA using specialty medications compared with those using non-specialty (i.e., traditional) medications. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data from 2009 through 2015. Health care use and expenditures were examined using a (zero-truncated or zero-inflated) negative binomial model and a generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution (or a two-part model). RESULTS: Compared to patients with RA who were traditional medication users (TMUs), those categorized as specialty medication users (SMUs) were prescribed about 24% fewer medications (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.66-0.89) and received fewer office-based visits (IRR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.70-0.99). Although SMUs' spending on emergency department visits was lower, their spending on total health care was $14,570 higher than that of TMUs. Compared with TMUs, users of both specialty and traditional medications (BMUs) had fewer emergency department visits (IRR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.39-0.81) with less spending on emergency service use. Overall, BMUs' total health care spending was $5720 higher than TMUs' total spending. CONCLUSIONS: There were some differences in health care use and expenditures for treating RA between patients using specialty medications and those using traditional medications. Total health care spending was higher for SMUs/BMUs despite their less frequent use of some types of medical services and lower spending on emergency department visits, because of the high cost of specialty medications for RA. The high costs of specialty medications implies the importance of the efficient use of these medications.

Assessing the Value of Sarilumab Monotherapy for Adults with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with a societal burden greater than $39 billion annually. Novel treatments, known as targeted immune modulators (TIMs), are expensive but effective, producing improvements in response rates compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). Sarilumab, a TIM approved in 2017, shows superior improvements compared with cDMARDs and produced significantly greater likelihood of achieving response and improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index than adalimumab monotherapy. Although sarilumab monotherapy has shown improvements over cDMARDs and the TIM market leader adalimumab, treatment with sarilumab is costly, with an annual wholesale acquisition cost of $39,000. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of starting treatment with sarilumab monotherapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs. METHODS: A sequential treatment cohort model followed a hypothetical cohort from initiation of sarilumab monotherapy until death. The model allowed patients to switch therapies up to 3 times due to effectiveness or adverse events. The first switch was to a TIM within the same treatment category; the second switch was to a TIM within a different treatment category; and the third switch was to a cDMARD. Sarilumab monotherapy was compared with a cDMARD (methotrexate) and the TIM market leader (adalimumab monotherapy). Key risk and benefit evidence came from clinical studies and network meta-analyses of data on radiographic progression and response. We used a lifetime time horizon and the U.S. health sector payer perspective assuming therapy net pricing. We also incorporated loss of productivity to reflect a restricted societal perspective. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, a treatment pathway starting with sarilumab resulted in 17.16 life-years and 13.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment pathways starting with the cDMARD resulted in 16.54 life-years and 11.77 QALYs; treatment pathways starting with adalimumab resulted in 17.05 life-years and 13.35 QALYs. Total costs for sarilumab ($492,000 for payer perspective, $634,000 for societal perspective) were less than total costs for adalimumab ($536,000 for payer perspective, $689,000 for societal perspective) but higher than total costs for the cDMARD ($63,000 for payer perspective, $272,000 for societal perspective). When compared with cDMARD therapy, sarilumab resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $227,000 per QALY gained from the payer perspective and $191,000 per QALYs gained from the societal perspective. When compared with adalimumab, sarilumab was dominant from both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab resulted in better health outcomes than conventional therapy alone. However, its additional cost with assumed class-level net prices led to cost-effectiveness estimates above commonly cited thresholds. When compared with the market leader, sarilumab achieved favorable value. This evaluation informs stakeholders of the value of sarilumab and its alternatives to promote high value practices in health care. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Kumar, Synnott, and Agboola are employees of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. The organization's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Omeda Rx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Humana. This work is an extension of an analysis presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council on March 24, 2017, where the authors received public feedback on the analysis, results, and effect of a value assessment for targeted immune modulators. At the time of presentation, sarilumab was still an investigational product; therefore, a price was not known, so cost-effectiveness estimates were not generated. Since the presentation of that material, additional evidence for sarilumab has become available. The additional evidence has been incorporated into this analysis to present cost-effectiveness estimates for sarilumab.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease affecting an estimated 1.5 million patients in the US. The condition is associated with a substantial health and economic burden. An economic model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib (a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor) versus biologic therapies commonly prescribed in the US for the treatment of RA. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed whereby sequences of treatments were evaluated. Response to treatment was modeled by HAQ change, and informed by a network meta-analysis. Mortality, resource use and quality of life were captured in the model using published regression analyses based on HAQ score. Treatment discontinuation was linked to response to treatment and to adverse events. Patients were modeled as having had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), or to a first biologic therapy (TNFi-IR). RESULTS: The tofacitinib strategy was associated with cost savings compared with alternative treatment sequences across all modeled scenarios (i.e. in both the MTX-IR and TNFi-IR scenarios), with lifetime cost savings per patient ranging from $65,205 to $93,959 (2015 costs). Cost savings arose due to improved functioning and the resulting savings in healthcare expenditure, and lower drug and administration costs. The tofacitinib strategies all resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with additional QALYs per patient ranging from 0.01 to 0.22. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib as a second-line therapy following methotrexate failure and as a third-line therapy following a biologic failure produces lower costs and improved quality of life compared with the current pathway of care.

Estimating the response and economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Taiwan using the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in Taiwan utilizing the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database (NHIRD) have estimated the direct healthcare costs of RA patients, but they have not focused on patients on bDMARDs, or considered patients' response to therapy. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to estimate the rate of inadequate response for patients newly treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) as well as their costs and resource use. METHODS: Data were from the catastrophic illness file within the NHIRD from 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2013. Patients with RA, which was categorized by the presence of a catastrophic illness card, that were previously bDMARD-naïve, were included in this study if they initiated their first bDMARD during the index period. The index period included all of 2010, a pre-index period consisting of the index date- 365 days, and a follow-up period including the index date to 365 days post-index, were also included. Previously biologically-naïve patients were indexed into the study on the date of their first claim for a bDMARD. A validated algorithm was used to examine the rate of inadequate response (IR) in the biologically-naïve cohort of patients. Inadequate responders met one or more of the following criteria during their year of follow-up: low adherence (proportion of days covered <0.80); switched to or added a second bDMARD; added a new conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD); received ≥1 glucocorticoid injection; or increased oral glucocorticoid dosing. All-cause mean annual direct costs and resource use were measured in the year of follow-up. Costs were converted from NT$ to USD using 1 NT$ = 0.033 USD. RESULTS: A total of 818 patients with RA initiated their first bDMARD (54% etanercept and 46% adalimumab) in 2010. After one year of follow-up, 32% (n = 258) were classified as stable, 66% (n = 540) had an IR, and 2% (n = 20) were lost to follow-up. During the follow-up period mean annual total direct costs were $16,136 for stable patients compared to $14,154 for patients with IR. Mean annual non-medication direct costs were $937 for stable patients and $1,574 for patients with IR. Mean annual hospitalizations were higher for patients with IR (0.46) compared to stable patients (0.10) during the one year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients that were previously naïve to bDMARDs had an IR to their first bDMARD during the year of follow-up. Patients with an IR had numerically increased all-cause resource utilization and non-medication costs during the follow-up period compared to patients with stable disease. This level of IR suggests an unmet need in the RA treatment paradigm.

Modeled Health Economic Impact of a Hypothetical Certolizumab Pegol Risk-Sharing Scheme for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Finland.

PURPOSE: To model the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) (with and without a hypothetical risk-sharing scheme at treatment initiation for biologic-naïve patients) versus the current mix of reimbursed biologics for treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Finland. METHODS: A probabilistic model with 12-week cycles and a societal approach was developed for the years 2015-2019, accounting for differences in ACR responses (meta-analysis), mortality, and persistence. The risk-sharing scheme included a treatment switch and refund of the costs associated with CZP acquisition if patients failed to achieve ACR20 response at week 12. For the current treatment mix, ACR20 at week 24 determined treatment continuation. Quality-adjusted life years were derived on the basis of the Health Utilities Index. RESULTS: In the Finnish target population, CZP treatment with a risk-sharing scheme led to a estimated annual net expenditure decrease ranging from 1.7% in 2015 to 5.6% in 2019 compared with the current treatment mix. Per patient over the 5 years, CZP risk sharing was estimated to decrease the time without ACR response by 5%-units, decrease work absenteeism by 24 days, and increase the time with ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses by 5%-, 6%-, and 1%-units, respectively, with a gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years. The modeled risk-sharing scheme showed reduced costs of €7866 per patient, with a more than 95% probability of cost-effectiveness when compared with the current treatment mix. CONCLUSION: The present analysis estimated that CZP, with or without the risk-sharing scheme, is a cost-effective alternative treatment for RA patients in Finland. The surplus provided by the CZP risk-sharing scheme could fund treatment for 6% more Finnish RA patients. FUNDING: UCB Pharma.

Econometric modelling of multiple self-reports of health states: The switch from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in evaluating drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis.

EQ-5D is used in cost-effectiveness studies underlying many important health policy decisions. It comprises a survey instrument describing health states across five domains, and a system of utility values for each state. The original 3-level version of EQ-5D is being replaced with a more sensitive 5-level version but the consequences of this change are uncertain. We develop a multi-equation ordinal response model incorporating a copula specification with normal mixture marginals to analyse joint responses to EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in a survey of people with rheumatic disease, and use it to generate mappings between the alternative descriptive systems. We revisit a major cost-effectiveness study of drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, mapping the original EQ-5D-3L measure onto a 5L valuation basis. Working within a comprehensive, flexible econometric framework, we find that use of simpler restricted specifications can make very large changes to cost-effectiveness estimates with serious implications for decision-making.

Cost-utility analysis of certolizumab pegol in combination with methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Greece.

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of certolizumab pegol (CZP), a pegylated fc-free anti-TNF, as add-on therapy to methotrexate (MTX) versus etanercept, adalimumab, or golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not responding to the conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). A Markov model (6-month cycle length) assessed health and cost outcomes of CZP versus other anti-TNFs recommended for RA in Greece over a patient's lifetime. Following discontinuation of first-line anti-TNF, patients switched to second anti-TNF and then to a biologic with another mode of action. Sequential use of csDMARDs followed third biologic. Clinical data and utilities were extracted from published literature. Analysis was conducted from third-party payer perspective in Greece. Costs (drug acquisition, administration, monitoring, and patient management) were considered for 2014. Results presented are incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) ascertained robustness of base-case findings. Base-case analysis indicated that CZP+MTX was more costly and more effective compared with Etanercept+MTX (base-case ICER: €3,177 per QALY), whilst versus adalimumab/golimumab, CZP was dominant (less costly, more effective). For all comparisons, CZP treatment resulted in greater improvements in life expectancy and QALYs. PSA indicated that at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €34,000/QALY, CZP+MTX was associated with a 71.6, 97.9, or 99.2% probability of being cost-effective versus etanercept, golimumab, or adalimumab, respectively, in combination with MTX. This analysis demonstrates CZP+MTX to be a cost-effective alternative over Etanercept+MTX and a dominant option over Adalimumab+MTX and Golimumab+MTX for management of RA in Greece.

Economic Burden of Switching to a Non-Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Versus a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Biologic Therapy among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with switching to another tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFi) therapy versus a non-TNFi therapy among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) discontinuing use of an initial TNFi biologic therapy. METHODS: Patients with ≥2 RA diagnoses who used ≥1 TNFi on or after their initial RA diagnosis were identified in a US employer-based insurance claims database. Patients were selected based on ≥1 claim of another TNFi or a non-TNFi biologic therapy (occurring after 2010, and within 30 days before to 60 days after discontinuation of the initial TNFi), and continuous insurance ≥6 months before (baseline period) and ≥12 months after the switch date (study period). Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were measured during the baseline period. All-cause and RA-related HRU and costs were analyzed during the 12-month study period using multivariable regression analysis controlling for baseline characteristics and selected comorbidities. RESULTS: Of the 1577 patients with RA that switched therapies, 1169 patients used another TNFi and 408 patients used a non-TNFi biologic. The most commonly used initial TNFi treatments were etanercept (50%) and adalimumab (34%) among the TNFi cohort, and infliximab (39%) and etanercept (28%) among the non-TNFi cohort. The TNFi cohort had significantly fewer outpatient visits [all-cause: 23.01 vs. 29.77 visits/patient/year; adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.78, P < 0.001; RA-related: 7.42 vs. 13.58; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001] and rheumatologist visits (all-cause: 4.01 vs. 6.81; adjusted IRR = 0.66, P < 0.001; RA-related: 3.23 vs. 6.40; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001) than the non-TNFi cohort. All-cause total costs were significantly lower for patients who switched to another TNFi instead of a non-TNFi therapy ($36,932 vs. $44,566; adjusted difference = $7045, P < 0.01), as were total RA-related costs ($26,973 vs. $31,735; adjusted difference = $4904, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Adult patients with RA discontinuing TNFi therapy who switched to an alternative TNFi incurred lower healthcare costs than patients who switched to a non-TNFi biologic. FUNDING: AbbVie, Inc.

Impact of Out-of-Pocket Costs on Prescription Fills Among New Initiators of Biologic Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapies are a mainstay of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet high member out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for such therapies may limit patient access to these therapies. OBJECTIVE: To understand whether there is a relationship between OOP costs and the initial fill and subsequent refills of biologic DMARD treatments for RA members. METHODS: Members of a national Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan with an adjudicated (paid or reversed) claim for a biologic DMARD indicated for RA were identified from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012, and followed retrospectively. The first adjudicated claim date was the index date. Members were required to have 180 days of continuous enrollment pre- and post-index and ≥ 1 diagnosis for RA (ICD-9-CM: 714.0 or 714.2) during pre-index or ≤ 30 days post-index. Low-income subsidy and Medicaid-Medicare dual-eligible patients were excluded. The analysis used multivariate regression models to examine associations between initial prescription (Rx) abandonment rates and OOP costs and factors influencing the refill of a biologic DMARD therapy based on pharmacy claims. RESULTS: The final sample size included 864 MAPD members with an adjudicated claim for a biologic DMARD. The majority were female (77.4%) and mean age was 63.5 years (SD = 10.9). Most (78%) had conventional nonbiologic DMARD utilization during pre-index. The overall initial abandonment rate was 18.2% for biologic DMARDs, ranging from 1.3% for the lowest OOP cost group ($0-$250) to 32.7% for the highest OOP cost group (> $550; P < 0.0001 for Cochran-Armitage trend test). ORs for abandonment rose from 18.4 to 32.7 to 41.2 for OOP costs of $250.01-$400.00, $400.01-$550.00, and > $550.00 respectively, relative to OOP costs of ≤ $250.00 (all P < 0.0001). Meeting the catastrophic coverage limit and utilization of a specialty pharmacy for the index claim were both associated with a decreased likelihood of abandoning therapy (OR = 0.29 and OR = 0.14, respectively; both P < 0.05). Among the subset of 533 members with a paid claim, 82.4% had at least 1 refill post-index. The negative association between OOP cost and likelihood of refilling an Rx was highly significant (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the higher the member OOP cost, the less likely an MAPD member is to initiate or refill a biologic DMARD therapy for RA. Further research is needed to understand reasons for initial Rx abandonment and lack of refills, including benefit design and adverse events.

A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Utilization and Costs of Biologic Therapies and JAK Inhibitor Therapy Across Four Common Inflammatory Indications in Adult US Managed Care Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies are used to treat several inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data from a commercial claims database were used to evaluate utilization and cost of biologic treatment for these conditions. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Optum Research Database. Patients were aged 18-63 years with diagnosis of moderate to severe RA, PsO, PsA, and/or AS and first (index) claim for biologics abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab, or ustekinumab or non-biologic tofacitinib between March 1, 2011 and February 28, 2013. One-year treatment costs were based on observed paid amounts and used to impute dosing. Treatment patterns (persistence, switching, discontinuing, restarting) were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 20,159 patients were analyzed for index medications abatacept (n = 583), adalimumab (n = 6521), certolizumab pegol (n = 415), etanercept (n = 9116), golimumab (n = 231), infliximab (n = 1906), rituximab (n = 295), tocilizumab (n = 165), ustekinumab (n = 922), and tofacitinib (n = 5). For patients with RA only, costs were lowest for tofacitinib ($18,769), rituximab ($19,569), or abatacept ($21,877), and ranged from $23,682 to $30,269 for all other medications. For patients with PsO only, costs were lowest for adalimumab ($29,186), etanercept ($31,212), and infliximab ($32,409) compared with ustekinumab ($53,746). For patients with PsA only, costs were lowest for etanercept ($26,916), followed by golimumab ($27,987), adalimumab ($28,749), and infliximab ($31,974). Costs were lowest with etanercept for RA plus PsA ($25,477) and for PsO plus PsA ($29,376), and with golimumab for AS only ($24,225). Across indications, annual costs were $29,521, $27,488, and $28,672 for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, respectively; persistence was greatest with infliximab (range 66-79%) compared with 11-59% for all other biologics. CONCLUSION: One-year treatment costs varied considerably between medications and indications. Some newly approved agents had lower costs but further research is needed to confirm these estimates as more patients are treated. FUNDING: Immunex (a wholly owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc.) and Wyeth (acquired by Pfizer).

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

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment is a significant economic burden on the Italian healthcare system. Economic models in RA are commonly based on indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of abatacept relative to adalimumab for RA in Italy based on a head-to-head trial by means of a cost-consequence analysis. RESULTS: Health benefits based on the most stringent efficacy criteria were in favor of abatacept compared to adalimumab. Rates for more costly adverse events were higher for adalimumab compared to abatacept, which was reflected in the lower costs for abatacept (-€237,246 or -€237per patient). CONCLUSION: The health economic value of abatacept compared with adalimumab from the perspective of the Italian NHS depends on the choice of health outcome. Health gains with abatacept were generally based on more stringent criteria and lower total costs.

Rheumatoid arthritis and work: The impact of rheumatoid arthritis on absenteeism and presenteeism.

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), being in paid work is very important, and it increases self-esteem and financial independence. Although the management of RA has changed in the last 15 years to early aggressive treatment and the introduction of biologic treatments, many patients still have to take sick leave or even stop working because of their RA (i.e., absenteeism). For those remaining in paid work, patients may experience problems due to RA resulting in productivity loss while at work (i.e., presenteeism). The costs attributed to absenteeism and presenteeism (i.e., indirect costs) have been estimated to be very high, and they even exceed direct costs. However, there is no consensus on how to calculate these costs. This manuscript examines the relationship between the use of biologic therapy and absenteeism, with a focus on sick leave, and on presenteeism, and it provides an overview of indirect costs of absenteeism and presenteeism in those treated with biologic therapies.

A nurse-led rheumatology clinic versus rheumatologist-led clinic in monitoring of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis undergoing biological therapy: a cost comparison study in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for rheumatology nursing management of chronic inflammatory arthritis (CIA) from European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) states that nurses should take part in the monitoring patients' disease and therapy in order to achieve cost savings. The aim of the study was to compare the costs of rheumatology care between a nurse-led rheumatology clinic (NLC), based on person-centred care (PCC), versus a rheumatologist-led clinic (RLC), in monitoring of patients with CIA undergoing biological therapy. METHODS: Patients with CIA undergoing biological therapy (n = 107) and a Disease Activity Score of 28 ≤ 3.2 were randomised to follow-up by either NLC or RLC. All patients met the rheumatologist at inclusion and after 12 months. In the intervention one of two annual monitoring visits in an RLC was replaced by a visit to an NLC. The primary outcome was total annual cost of rheumatology care. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients completed the RCT at the 12 month follow-up. Replacing one of the two annual rheumatologist monitoring visits by a nurse-led monitoring visit, resulted in no additional contacts to the rheumatology clinic, but rather a decrease in the use of resources and a reduction of costs. The total annual rheumatology care costs including fixed monitoring, variable monitoring, rehabilitation, specialist consultations, radiography, and pharmacological therapy, generated € 14107.7 per patient in the NLC compared with € 16274.9 in the RCL (p = 0.004), giving a € 2167.2 (13 %) lower annual cost for the NLC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CIA and low disease activity or in remission undergoing biological therapy can be monitored with a reduced resource use and at a lower annual cost by an NLC, based on PCC with no difference in clinical outcomes. This could free resources for more intensive monitoring of patients early in the disease or patients with high disease activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as a clinical trial at the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01071447). Registration date: October 8, 2009.

Shared care or nurse consultations as an alternative to rheumatologist follow-up for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outpatients with stable low disease-activity RA: cost-effectiveness based on a 2-year randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of three types of follow-up for outpatients with stable low-activity rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHOD: In total, 287 patients were randomized to either planned rheumatologist consultations, shared care without planned consultations, or planned nurse consultations. Effectiveness measures included disease activity (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joint counts and C-reactive protein, DAS28-CRP), functional status (Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ), and health-related quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D). Cost measures included activities in outpatient clinics and general practice, prescription and non-prescription medicine, dietary supplements, other health-care resources, and complementary and alternative care. Measures of effectiveness and costs were collected by self-reported questionnaires at inclusion and after 12 and 24 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness rates (ICERs) were estimated in comparison with rheumatologist consultations. RESULTS: Changes in disease activity, functional status, and health-related quality of life were not statistically significantly different for the three groups, although the mean scores were better for the shared care and nurse care groups compared with the rheumatologist group. Shared care and nurse care were non-significantly less costly than rheumatologist care. As both shared care and nurse care were associated with slightly better EQ-5D improvements and lower costs, they dominated rheumatologist care. At EUR 10,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold, shared care and nurse care were cost-effective with more than 90% probability. Nurse care was cost-effective in comparison with shared care with 75% probability. CONCLUSIONS: Shared care and nurse care seem to cost less but provide broadly similar health outcomes compared with rheumatologist outpatient care. However, it is still uncertain whether nurse care and shared care are cost-effective in comparison with rheumatologist outpatient care.