Evaluation of Metronomic Therapy as a Low-Cost, Sustainable, Standard-of-Care Option in Desmoid Fibromatosis: Real-World Data From a Tertiary Care Center in India.

PURPOSE: Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) is a locally aggressive tumor with low mortality but significant morbidity. There is a lack of standard of care, and existing therapies are associated with significant barriers including access, cost, and toxicities. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the metronomic therapy (MT) in DF in a large, homogenous cohort from India. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved histologically confirmed DF cases treated with MT comprising vinblastine (6 mg) and methotrexate (15 mg) both once a week, and tamoxifen (40 mg/m2) in two divided doses once daily between 2002 and 2018. RESULTS: There were 315 patients with a median age of 27 years; the commonest site was extremity (142 of 315; 45.0%). There were 159 (50.1%) male patients. Of the 123 (39.0%) prior treated patients, 119 had surgery. Of 315 patients, 263 (83.5%) received treatment at our institute (MT-151, 77-local treatment, 9-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and 26 were observed). Among the MT cohort (n = 163, 61.2%), at a median follow-up of 36 (0.5-186) months, the 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 81.1% (95% CI, 74.3 to 88.4) and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.6 to 100), respectively. There were 35% partial responses. Ninety-two patients (56.4%) completed 1-year therapy, which was an independent prognosticator (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 0.177 [95% CI, 0.083 to 0.377]). MT was well tolerated. Predominant grade ≥3 toxicities were febrile neutropenia, 12 (7.4%) without any chemotoxicity-related death. The annual cost of MT was $130 US dollars. CONCLUSION: The novel, low-cost MT qualifies as one of the effective, less toxic, sustainable, standard-of-care options for the treatment of DF with global reach and merits wide recognition.

Economic Benefit from Improvements in Quality of Life with Upadacitinib: Comparisons with Tofacitinib and Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the economic benefit of upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy from improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data were analyzed from two trials of upadacitinib (SELECT-NEXT and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY) and one trial of tofacitinib (ORAL-Standard) that collected HRQOL measurements using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey in patients with RA. Direct medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) for patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and methotrexate were derived from observed SF-36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in the SELECT trials using a regression algorithm. Direct medical costs PPPM for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily were obtained from a published analysis of SF-36 PCS and MCS scores observed in the ORAL-Standard trial. Short-term (12-14 weeks) and long-term (48 weeks) estimates of direct medical costs PPPM were compared between upadacitinib and tofacitinib and between upadacitinib and methotrexate. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $252 lower (95% CI $72, $446) for upadacitinib-treated patients versus tofacitinib-treated patients. Medical costs PPPM at weeks 24 and 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $1759; 95% CI $1162, $2449) were significantly lower for upadacitinib than for tofacitinib. Over 14 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $399 lower (95% CI $158, $620) for patients treated with upadacitinib monotherapy compared with those treated with methotrexate alone. Direct medical costs at week 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $2044; 95% CI $1221, $2846) were significantly lower for upadacitinib monotherapy compared with methotrexate alone. CONCLUSION: In the short and long term, upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy were associated with significantly lower direct medical costs for patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02675426, NCT02706951, and NCT00853385.

IAP Chemotherapy Regimen Is a Viable and Cost-effective Option in Children and Adolescents With Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Analysis With MAP Regimen on Toxicity and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and doxorubicin are integral components of chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of osteosarcoma. Choice of third agent high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) or an alkylating agent such as ifosfamide is debatable. The present study compared the impact of MAP (HDMTX-doxorubicin-cisplatin) and IAP (ifosfamide-doxorubicin-cisplatin) chemotherapy regimens on toxicity and survival in children and adolescents with osteosarcoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study including patients 18 years and younger with osteosarcoma during the study period. Clinical, demographic, chemotherapy regimen, and surgical details and treatment-related toxicity were retrieved from hospital medical records. Prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 102 patients included in the study, 59 (57.8%) and 43 (42.2%) patients were treated with MAP and IAP regimens, respectively. Two groups were comparable in terms of pretreatment characteristics and surgical treatment. Overall, 95.9% patients underwent limb salvage surgery. There was a statistically increased incidence in supportive care admissions and delay in starting the next cycle of chemotherapy in the MAP group. Among the MAP cohort, the 5-year OS and EFS were 62% and 55% compared with 47% and 44%, respectively, in the IAP cohort (P=0.143 and 0.316, respectively). On univariate and multivariate analyses, statistically significant factors affecting EFS of the whole group included tumor size, stage, site of metastasis, histologic necrosis, and type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: OS and EFS with both regimens were similar. However, the MAP regimen was associated with a statistically significant increase in incidence of supportive care admissions, delay in next cycle of chemotherapy, and predicted higher cost of treatment.

The Effect of Dose Escalation on the Cost-Effectiveness of Etanercept and Adalimumab with Methotrexate Among Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occasionally increase their doses of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, especially the monoclonal antibody origin drugs such as adalimumab and infliximab, after inadequate response to the initial dose. Previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various sequences of treatment for RA in the United States but have not considered the effect of dose escalation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of etanercept and adalimumab by incorporating the effect of dose escalation in moderate to severe RA patients. METHODS: We adapted the open-source Innovation and Value Initiative - Rheumatoid Arthritis model, version 1.0 to separately simulate the magnitude and time to dose escalation among RA patients taking adalimumab plus methotrexate or etanercept plus methotrexate from a societal perspective and lifetime horizon. An important assumption in the model was that dose escalation would increase treatment costs through its effect on the number of doses but would have no effect on effectiveness. We estimated the dose escalation parameters using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases. We fit competing parametric survival models to model time to dose escalation and used model diagnostics to compare the fit of the competing models. We measured the magnitude of dose escalation as the percentage increase in the number of doses conditional on dose escalation. Finally, we used the parameterized model to simulate treatment sequences beginning with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, etanercept) followed by nonbiologic treatment. RESULTS: In baseline models without dose escalation, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of the etanercept treatment sequence relative to the adalimumab treatment sequence was $85,593. Incorporating dose escalation increased treatment costs for each sequence, but costs increased more with adalimumab, lowering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to $9,001. At willingness-to-pay levels of $100,000, the etanercept sequence was more cost-effective compared with the adalimumab sequence, with probability 0.55 and 0.85 in models with and without dose escalation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation has important effects on cost-effectiveness and should be considered when comparing biologic medications for the treatment of RA. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by Amgen. When this work was conducted, Incerti and Jansen were employees of Precision Health Economics, which received financial support from Amgen. Maksabedian Hernandez, Collier, Gharaibeh, and Stolshek were employees and stockholders of Amgen, and Tkacz and Moore-Schiltz were employees of IBM Watson Health, which received financial support from Amgen. Some of the results of this work were previously presented as a poster at the 2019 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting, March 25-28, 2019, in San Diego, CA.

Therapeutic Options and Cost-Effectiveness for Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: During the last two decades, the therapeutic decisions and strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management have improved dramatically. Today, the therapeutic armamentarium is significantly augmented, and by using both old and new drugs, remission or low disease activity is a reasonable goal. The use of conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with biologic (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs has revolutionized RA treatment. Methotrexate administration is considered fundamental among other csDMARDs for the treatment of RA. It is recommended as the initial drug (monotherapy), or in combination with other csDMARDs, bDMARDs, and tsDMARDs in a step-up strategy. Furthermore, it can be used with other csDMARDs as initial combination-therapy. On the other hand, despite the fact that bDMARDs and ts DMARDs are highly efficacious and can also be used as monotherapy in certain cases, cost-effectiveness is still questionable when compared with csDMARDs. In this direction, the classic argument of utmost importance has to do with the most appropriate treatment strategy that shall be initially applied: csDMARD combination-therapy versus monotherapy, or step-up combinationtherapy with bDMARDs, especially tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFa) blockers. For this reason, a literature review of the most important csDMARDs combination and bDMARDs combination studies has been deployed. RECENT FINDINGS: The results showed that the triple csDMARDs therapy approach is more effective and less expensive. In addition, workers' productivity is higher than any other treatment options for RA. Triple-therapy constitutes a smart, efficacious, and significantly cheaper choice for RA therapeutic management.

Solitary serum methotrexate level 36 hours post high-dose methotrexate: A safe, efficacious, and cost-effective strategy to monitor methotrexate toxicities in childhood leukemia in resource-limited centers.

BACKGROUND: The standard practice during high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) to mitigate toxicity is to serially monitor levels till serum MTX < 0.01 µmol/L. Most resource-limited centers lack in-house access to MTX levels, and therefore repeated monitoring is costly and cumbersome. We studied the efficacy and safety of "solitary 36 hours post HD-MTX levels (MTX36 )." PROCEDURE: This prospective observational study consecutively enrolled children with ALL receiving HD-MTX. Cycles with unavailable MTX36 and MTX36  > 10 µmol/L were excluded. HD-MTX was administered over 24 hours (BFM-2009 protocol) with 12 hours of prehydration. MTX36 were performed at other centers. Leucovorin was given in six hourly doses 36 hours post HD-MTX. Hydration was continued until the last dose of leucovorin. MTX toxicities, including change of creatinine from baseline at 36 hours (∆Cr36 ), were noted. Two groups depending on MTX36 (≤1 µmol/L vs > 1 µmol/L) received six versus eight doses of leucovorin, and toxicities were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-nine children with median age five years (1-11) who received 100 HD-MTX cycles with a median MTX dose of 3 g/m2 (2-5) were analyzed. The median MTX36 level was 1.165 µmol/L (0.1-7.32). Toxicities of HD-MTX (CTCAE-4.0): transaminitis-22%; creatinine elevation ≥ 1.25 times baseline-24%; cytopenias-16%; mucositis-17%; acute kidney injury (AKI)-6%. All toxicities were ≤CTCAE grade 3. Creatinine elevation, AKI, and mucositis were significantly higher in the group with higher MTX36 . There was no correlation (r = 0.3) between ∆Cr36 and MTX36 . MTX36 was thrice more economical than the standard protocol. CONCLUSION: MTX36 is a potential cost-effective, efficacious, and safe limited sample strategy to monitor HD-MTX, particularly in centers where in-house MTX levels are unavailable.

Economic Evaluation of Sequences of Biological Treatments for Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Methotrexate in France.

OBJECTIVES: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are prescribed sequentially in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Healthcare decision makers continue to debate their use, mainly because of their high costs. Our aim was to perform an economic evaluation for France of bDMARD sequences for treatment of moderate-to-severe RA after inadequate response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs (eg, methotrexate). METHODS: A discretely integrated condition event simulation was developed to track the course of patients from first bDMARD through switches to further lines in a sequence. The model included 11 events, 91 conditions, and 21 controlling equations. Inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of clinical trials, a French registry, national drug lists, and databases. Survival, time with minimal activity, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs were output. Structural and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Sequences starting with etanercept biosimilars (ETB) cost less, with ETB-abatacept-infliximab the least expensive: the mean lifetime discounted total cost was €116 912 per patient, with a mean of 11.166 QALYs. Most other strategies were dominated or led to small QALY gains (0.0008-0.0329). Only ETB-tocilizumab-abatacept made it onto the efficiency frontier, but at €955 778 per QALY gained. These results were confirmed in several scenarios and uncertainty analyses. CONCLUSION: Given minor differences in QALYs gained between bDMARD sequences with large cost differences, starting with biosimilars was more efficient than starting with branded products. Our model and findings should provide French and other decision makers with useful tools to address the challenges of comparing sequences of treatments for RA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept plus methotrexate vs triple therapy in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of etanercept plus methotrexate (ETN+MTX) compared to triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: The 134 Chinese RA patients who were about to initiate ETN+MTX or triple DMARDs therapy based on treat-to-target strategy were consecutively recruited and categorized into ETN+MTX group (N = 49) or triple DMARDs group (N = 85). Treatment efficacy was assessed at month 3 (M3)/M6/M9/M12 after initiation of treatment. Also, 1-year treatment cost was evaluated, and cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: RA patients in ETN+MTX group exhibited similar disease activity and quality of life at each time point while elevated 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) change (M0-M12) and low disease activity rate compared with triple DMARDs group. For 1-year treatment cost, ETN+MTX required increased drug cost, decreased other medical cost, and finally elevated total cost compared with triple DMARDs. Meanwhile, compared to triple DMARDs, ETN+MTX produced an additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.015, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥2,939,506.7 per QALY that was 53.1 folds of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. More interestingly, sensitivity analysis revealed that the ETN price had to be reduced at least by 71.3% before ETN+MTX became cost-effectiveness compared to triple DMARDs. CONCLUSION: ETN+MTX is less cost-effective in treating Chinese RA patients compared with triple DMARDs.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize patients' preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients' preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies. RESULTS: From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

A novel etanercept biosimilar Anbainuo plus methotrexate exhibits increased cost-effectiveness compared to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in treating rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anbainuo (ABN) plus methotrexate (MTX) (ABN + MTX) versus conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.Forty-eight moderate to severe RA patients underwent ABN + MTX or cDMARDs treatment were consecutively enrolled and assigned to ABN + MTX group (n = 26) and control group (n = 22). Patients were followed up and their disease activity and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated at 3rd month, 6th month and 12th month after initiation of treatment. Treatment costs of 2 groups were calculated, then pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed.ABN + MTX increased drug cost and total cost while decreased indirect cost compared with cDMARDs after 12-month treatment. ABN + MTX group gained additional 0.22 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥104,293.6 per QALY after treatment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that rising ABN price by 20% produced an ICER of ¥130,403.6 per QALY, which was still lower than 3 times of the mean gross domestic product (GDP) per capita during the same period in China (¥165,960). Besides, ABN + MTX was more cost-effective in severe RA patients compared to moderate RA patients.ABN + MTX is cost-effective in treating moderate to severe RA patients compared with cDMARDs, although the total cost of ABN + MTX is relatively higher.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR. METHODS: Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations. RESULTS: Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Cost-Effectiveness of Early Treatment with Originator Biologics or Their Biosimilars After Methotrexate Failure in Patients with Established Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supports the clinical benefits of early aggressive biologic treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but the cost-effectiveness of early intervention with originator biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or their biosimilars has not been well studied. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and utilities for patients with established RA who do not respond to methotrexate (MTX) therapy. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing a standard intervention pathway (addition of originator biologic TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 12 months) and two early intervention pathways (either addition of originator biologic TNFis or addition of biosimilar TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 6 months). RESULTS: Early intervention with an originator biologic TNFi at 6 months was associated with increases in total lifetime costs of £1692 and utilities of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient compared with standard intervention at 12 months, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,335/QALY. Early intervention with a biosimilar TNFi increased costs by £70 and utilities by 0.10 QALYs per patient and was associated with an ICER of £713/QALY. CONCLUSION: Switching from MTX monotherapy to combination therapy with either an originator biologic or biosimilar TNFis at 6 months after csDMARD failure in patients with RA was cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Economic Evaluation of Sarilumab in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately-to-Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have an Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care. RESULTS: Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis, clinical aspects and socio-economic determinants in Pakistani patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate literature on rheumatoid arthritis disease in Pakistani patients, to have an understanding about its epidemiology, clinical aspects and socio-economic determinants. METHODS: The review study was conducted from December 2017, to May 2018. An online search was conducted in international and local health databases using appropriate search keywords as well as scanning reference lists of related articles. Literature published after year 2000 that reported epidemiological, demographic, clinical and socioeconomic data of Pakistani rheumatoid arthritis patients was included. Meta-analysis was performed where possible. This systematic review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO (CRD42018090582). RESULTS: Of the 334 research articles found, 29 (8.7%) were selected. Patients were mostly females, but no study explored impact of disease on household and family role functioning of rheumatoid arthritis-affected women in Pakistan. Most patients were uneducated (55%) and unemployed; had low disease knowledge (N = 149, 74.5%) and poor adherence to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (N = 23, 23%). Point prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis reported from Karachi was high at 26.9%. Moderate disease activity, i.e., 4.5}0.7 and mild functional disability (N = 66, 51.6%) were seen in RA patients. Almost half (N = 799, 46.9%) had comorbidities. Almost a fifth proportion of RA patients had dyslipidaemia as a comorbidity (N = 134, 16.77%) and higher cardiovascular risk score as modifiable risk factor. Undiagnosed depression (N = 134, 58.3%) and low bone mineral density (N = 93, 40.6%) were reported in RA patients. Direct monthly treatment cost of disease was significantly high considering patients' socio-economic status, i.e., USD 16.47 - 100.68. Most commonly used drug was methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data on Pakistani rheumatoid arthritis patients' demographic and socio-economic parameters, especially the gender element.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of medical management versus conservative surgery for early tubal pregnancy.

STUDY QUESTION: Is conservative surgery (laparoscopic salpingotomy) cost-effective, using fertility as the endpoint compared with medical management (Methotrexate) in women with an early tubal pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Conservative surgery appeared slightly, but not statistically significantly, more effective than medical management but also more costly. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Women with an early tubal pregnancy treated with medical therapy (Methotrexate) or conservative surgery (laparoscopic salpingotomy) have comparable future intrauterine pregnancy rates by natural conception. Also, cost-minimisation studies have shown that medical therapy was less expensive than conservative surgery, but there is no cost-effectiveness study comparing these two treatments with fertility as the endpoint. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A multicentre randomised controlled trial-based (DEMETER study) cost-effectiveness analysis of conservative surgery compared with medical therapy in women with an early tubal pregnancy was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Included women had an ultrasound that confirmed an early tubal pregnancy. They were randomly allocated to conservative surgery or to medical therapy. The study clinical outcome was the intrauterine pregnancy rate. The payer's perspective was considered. Costs of conservative surgery and medical therapy were compared. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Missing variables were imputed using the fully conditional method. To characterise uncertainty and to provide a summary of it, a non-parametric bootstrap resampling was executed and cost-effectiveness accessibility curves were constructed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At baseline, costs per woman in the conservative surgery group and in the medical therapy group were 2627€ and 2463€, respectively, with a statistically significant difference of +164€. Conservative surgery resulted in a marginally, but non-significant (P = 0.46), higher future intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to medical therapy (0.700 vs. 0.649); leading, after bootstrap, to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1299€ (95% CI = -29 252; +29 919). Acceptability curves showed that conservative surgery could be considered a cost-effective treatment at a threshold of 3201€ for one additional future intrauterine pregnancy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation was that monetary valuation was carried out using 2016 euros while the DEMETER study took place from 2005 to 2009. Anyway, the results would not have been very different given the marginal changes in the health insurance reimbursement tariffs during this period. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Conservative surgery can be considered a cost-effective treatment, if the additional cost of 3201€ per additional future intrauterine pregnancy is an acceptable financial effort for the payer. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 00137982.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adalimumab for the Treatment of Uveitis Associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. METHODS: The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate or After 1 or 2 TNF Inhibitors from a U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Treatment cycling with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), is common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can result in reduced clinical efficacy and increased economic burden. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the economic effect of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) treatment directly after methotrexate (MTX) in the MTX-inadequate responder population, or after MTX and 1 TNFi (adalimumab [ADA] or etanercept [ETN]) or 2 TNFi (ADA and ETN) in TNF-inadequate responder patients with RA, from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A decision-tree economic model was used to evaluate costs over 2 years. Treatment response was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were derived from U.S. prescribing information for monotherapy and combination therapy. Safety event rates were sourced from a meta-analysis. It was assumed that 75% of patients switched therapy after an adverse event or lack of response. Cost inputs included drugs, monitoring and administration (including physician visits), health care utilization, and treatment for adverse events. The population comprised all organization members (i.e., RA and non-RA members); RA patients receiving TNFi were estimated using epidemiologic data. Results were based on an organization size of 1 million. Economic endpoints were total 2-year costs, costs per member per month (PMPM), and costs per ACR20/50 responder. RESULTS: 1,321 patients were included for analysis. Based on ACR20 switch criteria and either 100% or 50% monotherapy rates for all treatments, total 2-year costs and costs PMPM were lower for patients receiving tofacitinib as second-line therapy after MTX and as third-line therapy after MTX and 1 TNFi; costs were highest for patients who cycled through 2 TNFi. Similar trends were observed for switch criteria based on ACR50 response and addition of 20% rebates for ADA and ETN and 0% for tofacitinib, although differences were mitigated slightly. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment strategy with tofacitinib as either second- or third-line therapy after MTX may be a lower cost treatment option, compared with fourth-line introduction of tofacitinib after cycling through 2 TNFi following MTX. DISCLOSURES: All aspects of this study were funded by Pfizer. Claxton was an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, at the time of this study. Taylor is an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, The University of York, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct this study. Soonasra, Bourret, and Gerber are employees of Pfizer and hold stock/stock options in Pfizer. A previous iteration of the data reported in this manuscript (before adjustment for recent drug price increases) was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 28th Annual Meeting and Expo; April 19-22, 2016; held in San Francisco, CA.

Alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept or rituximab following failure of initial TNFi in rheumatoid arthritis: the SWITCH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common autoimmune disease in the UK, is a chronic systemic inflammatory arthritis that affects 0.8% of the UK population. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not an alternative class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are comparable to rituximab in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with RA in whom initial tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD and methotrexate (MTX) therapy failed because of inefficacy. DESIGN: Multicentre, Phase III, open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative TNFi and abatacept with that of rituximab (and background MTX therapy). Eligible consenting patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio using minimisation incorporating a random element. Minimisation factors were centre, disease duration, non-response category and seropositive/seronegative status. SETTING: UK outpatient rheumatology departments. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with RA and were receiving MTX, but had not responded to two or more conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies and had shown an inadequate treatment response to a first TNFi. INTERVENTIONS: Alternative TNFi, abatacept or rituximab (and continued background MTX). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was absolute reduction in the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures over 48 weeks were additional measures of disease activity, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, radiographic measures, safety and toxicity. LIMITATIONS: Owing to third-party contractual issues, commissioning challenges delaying centre set-up and thus slower than expected recruitment, the funders terminated the trial early. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and December 2014, 149 patients in 35 centres were registered, of whom 122 were randomised to treatment (alternative TNFi, n = 41; abatacept, n = 41; rituximab, n = 40). The numbers, as specified, were analysed in each group [in line with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle]. Comparing alternative TNFi with rituximab, the difference in mean reduction in DAS28 at 24 weeks post randomisation was 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 1.05] in the ITT patient population and -0.58 (95% CI -1.72 to 0.55) in the per protocol (PP) population. Corresponding results for the abatacept and rituximab comparison were 0.04 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.79) in the ITT population and -0.15 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.98) in the PP population. General improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life and the patients' general health was apparent over time, with no notable differences between treatment groups. There was a marked initial improvement in the patients' global assessment of pain and arthritis at 12 weeks across all three treatment groups. Switching to alternative TNFi may be cost-effective compared with rituximab [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £5332.02 per quality-adjusted life-year gained]; however, switching to abatacept compared with switching to alternative TNFi is unlikely to be cost-effective (ICER £253,967.96), but there was substantial uncertainty in the decisions. The value of information analysis indicated that further research would be highly valuable to the NHS. Ten serious adverse events in nine patients were reported; none were suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Two patients died and 10 experienced toxicity. FUTURE WORK: The results will add to the randomised evidence base and could be included in future meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: How to manage first-line TNFi treatment failures remains unresolved. Had the trial recruited to target, more credible evidence on whether or not either of the interventions were non-inferior to rituximab may have been provided, although this remains speculative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomized controlled trial protocol assessing the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate vs. ciclosporin in the treatment of severe atopic eczema in children: the TREatment of severe Atopic eczema Trial (TREAT).

BACKGROUND: Oral systemic immunomodulatory medication is regularly used off-licence in children with severe atopic eczema. However, there is no firm evidence regarding the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life from an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) using systemic medication in children. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether there is a difference in the speed of onset, effectiveness, side-effect profile and reduction in flares post-treatment between ciclosporin (CyA) and methotrexate (MTX), and also the cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Treatment impact on quality of life will also be examined in addition to whether FLG genotype influences treatment response. In addition, the trial studies the immune-metabolic effects of CyA and MTX. METHODS: Multicentre, parallel group, assessor-blind, pragmatic RCT of 36 weeks' duration with a 24-week follow-up period. In total, 102 children aged 2-16 years with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema, unresponsive to topical treatment will be randomized (1 : 1) to receive MTX (0·4 mg kg-1 per week) or CyA (4 mg kg-1 per day). RESULTS: The trial has two primary outcomes: change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare following treatment cessation. CONCLUSIONS: This trial addresses important therapeutic questions, highlighted in systematic reviews and treatment guidelines for atopic eczema. The trial design is pragmatic to reflect current clinical practice.