Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 3 de 3
1.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 55(10): 1803-11, 2016 Oct.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27354689

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) for RA using real-world data from Finnish registers. METHODS: RA patients starting their first bDMARD and comparator patients using csDMARDs during 2007-11 were obtained from the National register of biologic treatments in Finland and the Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for differences between bDMARD and csDMARD users. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and based on the register of biologic treatments in Finland and Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records, whereas the direct costs were obtained from relevant Finnish national registers. Patients were followed up for 2 years, and both costs and effectiveness for the second year were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with 95% CI was calculated based on bootstrapped mean costs and effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 1581 RA patients meeting study inclusion criteria, 552 bDMARD and 220 csDMARD users were included in analyses after matching. Mean costs for bDMARDs and csDMARDs were €55 371 and €24 879, while mean effectiveness was 1.23 and 1.20 QALYs, respectively. Consequent ICER was €902 210/QALY. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The high incremental cost and the small, non-significant difference in effectiveness resulted in high ICER, suggesting that bDMARDs are not cost-effective. Regardless of matching, latent confounders may introduce bias to the results.


Antirheumatic Agents/economics , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/economics , Biological Products/economics , Adalimumab/economics , Adalimumab/therapeutic use , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Biological Products/therapeutic use , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Costs , Etanercept/economics , Etanercept/therapeutic use , Female , Finland , Hospitalization/economics , Humans , Infliximab/economics , Infliximab/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Registries , Rituximab/economics , Rituximab/therapeutic use
2.
J Rheumatol ; 42(12): 2339-46, 2015 Dec.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26472421

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to describe the effectiveness and drug survival of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and to analyze the effect of concomitant treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: Patients with AS identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland starting their first TNF inhibitor treatment between July 2004 and December 2011 were included. Treatment response was measured as an improvement of 50% (or 20 mm) after 6 months of treatment onset compared to the baseline Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score. Treatment response and 2-year drug survival were modeled with logistic regression and time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models, respectively. RESULTS: The study comprised 543 patients, of whom 123 also commenced a second TNF inhibitor during the followup. Treatment was discontinued within 24 months by 25% and 28% of the users of the first and the second TNF inhibitors, respectively. BASDAI response at 6 months was achieved by 52% and 25% of the users of the first and the second TNF inhibitors, respectively. Etanercept (ETN; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.62) and adalimumab (ADA; HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.77) were associated with better drug survival in comparison to infliximab (IFX). Also, concurrent use of sulfasalazine (SSZ; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.99) decreased the hazard for treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: TNF inhibitors are equipotent in the treatment of AS; however, ETN and ADA were found superior to IFX in drug survival. The use of SSZ improves treatment continuation.


Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Registries , Spondylitis, Ankylosing/diagnosis , Spondylitis, Ankylosing/drug therapy , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/antagonists & inhibitors , Adult , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Confidence Intervals , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Finland , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/administration & dosage
3.
PLoS One ; 10(3): e0119683, 2015.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25781999

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations provide information to aid the optimal utilization of limited healthcare resources. Costs of biologics for Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are remarkably high, which makes these agents an important target for economic evaluations. This systematic review aims to identify existing studies examining the cost-effectiveness of biologics for RA, assess their quality and report their results systematically. METHODS: A literature search covering Medline, Scopus, Cochrane library, ACP Journal club and Web of Science was performed in March 2013. The cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of one or more available biological drugs for the treatment of RA in adults were included. Two independent investigators systematically collected information and assessed the quality of the studies. To enable the comparison of the results, all costs were converted to 2013 euro. RESULTS: Of the 4890 references found in the literature search, 41 CUAs were included in the current systematic review. While considering only direct costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) ranged from 39,000 to 1,273,000 €/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained in comparison to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in cDMARD naïve patients. Among patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs, biologics were associated with ICERs ranging from 12,000 to 708,000 €/QALY. Rituximab was found to be the most cost-effective alternative compared to other biologics among the patients with an insufficient response to TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: When 35,000 €/QALY is considered as a threshold for the ICER, TNFis do not seem to be cost-effective among cDMARD naïve patients and patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs. With thresholds of 50,000 to 100,000 €/QALY biologics might be cost-effective among patients with an inadequate response to cDMARDs. Standardization of multiattribute utility instruments and a validated standard conversion method for missing utility measures would enable better comparison between CUAs.


Antirheumatic Agents/economics , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Biological Products/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/economics , Biological Products/therapeutic use , Humans
...