Is a 1-year course of methotrexate in patients with arthralgia at-risk for rheumatoid arthritis cost-effective? A cost-effectiveness analysis of the randomised, placebo-controlled TREAT EARLIER trial.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has a considerable disease burden with life-long physical limitations, reduced work productivity and high societal costs. Trials on arthralgia at-risk for RA are therefore conducted, aiming to intercept evolving RA and reduce the disease burden. A 1-year course of methotrexate in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) caused sustained improvements in subclinical joint inflammation and physical impairments. Since the cost-effectiveness of treatment in CSA has never been investigated, we investigated whether methotrexate is cost-effective. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the TREAT EARLIER trial. 236 patients with CSA with subclinical joint inflammation were randomised to 1-year treatment with methotrexate, or placebo, and followed for 2 years. Cost-effectiveness was analysed by computing costs and effects. For costs, both a societal perspective (healthcare-productivity and work-productivity costs) and a healthcare perspective (healthcare costs only) were used. For effects, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were used. RESULTS: Treatment increased QALYs by 0.041 (95% CI -0.050 to 0.091), and reduced costs with €-4809 (95% CI -12 382 to 2726) over the course of 2 years using a societal perspective, with a probability of 88.1% that treatment was cost-effective. From a healthcare perspective, the cost-difference between treatment and placebo was estimated at €-418 (95% CI -1198 to 225). CONCLUSION: A fixed treatment course in individuals with arthralgia at-risk for RA and MRI-detected subclinical joint inflammation resulted in better work productivity, lower healthcare costs and improved quality of life over the course of 2 years; with the largest gain in productivity costs. This is the first evidence that methotrexate treatment aiming at secondary prevention in arthralgia at-risk for RA is cost-effective.

How Can a Bundled Payment Model Incentivize the Transition from Single-Disease Management to Person-Centred and Integrated Care for Chronic Diseases in the Netherlands?

To stimulate the integration of chronic care across disciplines, the Netherlands has implemented single-disease management programmes (SDMPs) in primary care since 2010; for example, for COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases. These disease-specific chronic care programmes are funded by bundled payments. For chronically ill patients with multimorbidity or with problems in other domains of health, this approach was shown to be less fit for purpose. As a result, we are currently witnessing several initiatives to broaden the scope of these programmes, aiming to provide truly person-centred integrated care (PC-IC). This raises the question if it is possible to design a payment model that would support this transition. We present an alternative payment model that combines a person-centred bundled payment with a shared savings model and pay-for-performance elements. Based on theoretical reasoning and results of previous evaluation studies, we expect the proposed payment model to stimulate integration of person-centred care between primary healthcare providers, secondary healthcare providers, and the social care domain. We also expect it to incentivise cost-conscious provider-behaviour, while safeguarding the quality of care, provided that adequate risk-mitigating actions, such as case-mix adjustment and cost-capping, are taken.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps: Predicted Uptake in the Netherlands Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based contact tracing apps can contribute to reducing COVID-19 transmission rates and thereby support countries emerging from lockdowns as restrictions are gradually eased. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of our study is to determine the potential uptake of a contact tracing app in the Dutch population, depending on the characteristics of the app. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted in a nationally representative sample of 900 Dutch respondents. Simulated maximum likelihood methods were used to estimate population average and individual-level preferences using a mixed logit model specification. Individual-level uptake probabilities were calculated based on the individual-level preference estimates and subsequently aggregated into the sample as well as subgroup-specific contact tracing app adoption rates. RESULTS: The predicted app adoption rates ranged from 59.3% to 65.7% for the worst and best possible contact tracing app, respectively. The most realistic contact tracing app had a predicted adoption of 64.1%. The predicted adoption rates strongly varied by age group. For example, the adoption rates of the most realistic app ranged from 45.6% to 79.4% for people in the oldest and youngest age groups (ie, ≥75 years vs 15-34 years), respectively. Educational attainment, the presence of serious underlying health conditions, and the respondents' stance on COVID-19 infection risks were also correlated with the predicted adoption rates but to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: A secure and privacy-respecting contact tracing app with the most realistic characteristics can obtain an adoption rate as high as 64% in the Netherlands. This exceeds the target uptake of 60% that has been formulated by the Dutch government. The main challenge will be to increase the uptake among older adults, who are least inclined to install and use a COVID-19 contact tracing app.