Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of add-on, low-dose prednisolone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 65+: The pragmatic, multicenter, placebo-controlled GLORIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The GLORIA placebo-controlled trial found a favorable balance of benefit and harm for two years of prednisolone (5 mg/day) as add-on treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients aged 65+. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of low-dose prednisolone in the treatment of RA. METHODS: The economic evaluation had a societal perspective with a time horizon of two years. Cost data were collected with questionnaires and from recorded events, and valued with standard Dutch unit prices of 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28). For cost-utility, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Bootstrapping assessed the uncertainty around the average differences in costs and health outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 444 of 451 randomized patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Patients had median four active comorbidities at baseline. Mean total costs over two years were k€10.8 in the prednisolone group, k€0.5 (95% CI -4.0; 1.8) lower than in the placebo group. Total direct medical costs were k€0.5 (95% CI -4.0; 1.5) lower in the prednisolone group. The mean number of QALYs was similar in both groups (difference 0.02 [-0.03; 0.06] in favor of prednisolone). The DAS28 was 0.38 lower in the prednisolone group than in the placebo group (0.19; 0.56). CONCLUSION: With greater effectiveness (DAS28) at non-significantly lower costs, low-dose, add-on prednisolone is cost-effective for RA compared to placebo over two years. QALYs were equal in both groups, most likely due to the impact of multiple comorbidities.

Cost-Effectiveness of Shortening Treatment Duration Based on Interim PET Outcome in Patients With Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment are shifting from long to short treatment duration, although it is still unclear whether shortening treatment duration does not cause any harm. As interim PET (I-PET) has high negative predictive value for progression, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of shortening treatment duration dependent on I-PET result. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model using the PET Re-Analysis (PETRA) database to evaluate a long treatment duration (LTD) strategy, ie 8x R-CHOP or 6x R-CHOP plus 2 R, and a short treatment duration (STD) strategy, ie 6x R-CHOP. Strategies were evaluated separately in I-PET2 positive and I-PET2 negative patients. Outcomes included total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (pp) from a societal perspective. Net monetary benefit (NMB) per strategy was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY. Robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In I-PET2 positive patients, shortening treatment duration led to 50.4 additional deaths per 1000 patients. The STD strategy was less effective (-0.161 [95%CI: -0.343;0.028] QALYs pp) and less costly (-€2768 [95%CI: -€8420;€1105] pp). Shortening treatment duration was not cost-effective (incremental NMB -€5281). In I-PET2 negative patients, shortening treatment duration led to 5.0 additional deaths per 1000 patients and a minor difference in effectiveness (-0.007 [95%CI: -0.136;0.140] QALY pp). The STD strategy was less costly (-€5807 [95%CI: -€10,724;-€2685] pp) and led to an incremental NMB of €5449, indicating that it is cost-effective to shorten treatment duration. Robustness of these findings was underpinned by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Treatment duration should not be shortened in I-PET2 positive patients whereas it is cost-effective to shorten treatment duration in I-PET2 negative patients.