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).

The economic burden of the ankylosing spondylitis in the Czech Republic: comparison between 2005 and 2008.

To investigate the burden of ankylosing spondylitis in the Czech Republic as a baseline for future health economic evaluations. Data were obtained from two cross-sectional studies Beda I (2005) and Beda II (2008), performed in 1,008 and 509 patients, respectively. Methodology used was Cost-of-Illness prevalence-based analysis bottom-up approach. Analysis was performed from payer (health insurance companies) and societal perspective (including productivity costs using friction cost approach). Mean age of sample in Beda I and Beda II was 50.2 and 52.5 years, male were present by 61.0 and 62.7 %; average disease duration was 23.0 and 26.4 years, respectively. Mean total annual costs per patient in the sample were €4,782 in Beda I and €5806 in Beda II. Average direct costs per patient in the sample per year are estimated at €1,812 (Beda I) and €2,588 (Beda II) with the average productivity costs €2,970 (Beda I) and €3,218 (Beda II). We observed a small decrement in percentage (6.7 %) of productivity costs for Beda II as an influence of higher consumption of biologic drugs, hence higher direct costs and possible productivity preservation. The largest direct cost burdens were spa procedures (45.3 %, Beda I) and biological drugs (52.8 %, Beda II). Unique analysis of the burden of the AS in the Central-Eastern Europe presents health care resource and cost consumption by comparing two cross-sectional prevalence-based studies. Further analysis should be carried to obtain data connecting health status with costs consumption in order to analyse the AS from this perspective.

Willingness of patients with ankylosing spondylitis to pay for inpatient treatment is influenced by the treatment environment and expectations of improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the willingness to pay (WTP) for treatment in a spa resort of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and to assess if the experience of a spa influences the WTP. METHODS: 120 patients participating in a randomised trial comparing 3 weeks' treatment in a spa resort in Austria or in the Netherlands with a control group completed a WTP questionnaire before and after spa treatment. Patients indicated on a payment card the maximal co-payment they wanted to contribute for three scenarios that included (a) two levels of improvement in pain and stiffness and (b) two treatment environments: a rehabilitation hospital and a spa resort. RESULTS: At baseline, patients wanted to contribute more for the same improvement after treatment in a spa resort compared with a rehabilitation hospital (p<0.003), and were prepared to pay more when expected effects were higher (p<0.001). No differences were found between men and women, pain, or income. After the trial none of the treatment groups showed a change in their WTP. CONCLUSION: The WTP of patients with AS for inpatient treatment is influenced by the treatment environment and the expected improvement. Experiencing treatment in a spa resort does not influence the co-payment.

Cost effectiveness of combined spa-exercise therapy in ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost utility of a 3-week course of combined spa therapy and exercise therapy in addition to standard treatment consisting of antiinflammatory drugs and weekly group physical therapy in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients. METHODS: A total of 120 Dutch outpatients with AS were randomly allocated into 3 groups of 40 patients each. Group 1 was treated in a spa resort in Bad Hofgastein, Austria; group 2 in a spa resort in Arcen, The Netherlands. The control group stayed at home and continued their usual activities and standard treatment during the intervention weeks. After the intervention, all patients followed weekly group physical therapy. The total study period was 40 weeks. Effectiveness of the intervention was assessed by functional ability using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Function Index (BASFI). Utilities were measured with the EuroQoL (EQ-5D(utility)). A time-integrated summary score defined the clinical effects (BASFI-area under the curve [AUC]) and utilities (EQ-5D(utility)-AUC) over time. Both direct (health care and non-health care) and indirect costs were included. Resource utilization and absence from work were registered weekly by the patients in a diary. All costs were calculated from a societal perspective. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients completed the diary. The between-group difference for the BASFI-AUC was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.4-1.6; P = 0.001) for group 1 versus controls, and 0.6 (95% CI 0.1-1.1; P = 0.020) for group 2 versus controls. The between-group difference for EQ-5D(utility)-AUC was 0.17 (95% CI 0.09-0.25; P < 0.001) for group 1 versus controls, and 0.08 (95% CI 0.00-0.15; P = 0.04) for group 2 versus controls. The mean total costs per patient (including costs for spa therapy) in Euros (euro;) during the study period were euro;3,023 for group 1, euro;3,240 for group 2, and euro;1,754 for the control group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per unit effect gained in functional ability (0-10 scale) was euro;1,269 (95% CI 497-3,316) for group 1, and euro;2,477 (95% CI 601-12,098) for group 2. The costs per quality-adjusted life year gained were euro;7,465 (95% CI 3,294-14,686) for group 1, and euro;18,575 (95% CI 3,678-114,257) for group 2. CONCLUSION: Combined spa-exercise therapy besides standard treatment with drugs and weekly group physical therapy is more effective and shows favorable cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios compared with standard treatment alone in patients with AS.