Dose adjustment over time of etanercept and infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dose escalation of biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis may affect the cost of care. Longitudinal claims data from a large U.S. health plan were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 4,426 health plan members had a medication claim for either etanercept (N = 690; mean age, 48.4 yr; 72% female) or infliximab (N = 424; mean age, 54.3 yr; 73% female) during the selection period. The study revealed that the mean dosage in patients receiving infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis symptoms increased by 29% from first to last dose. The mean weekly dosage for etanercept remained stable. Etanercept was associated with a significantly lower hazard of dose increase relative to infliximab. The estimated annual costs of infliximab and its administration varied by 31%, whereas the estimated costs of etanercept remained stable over time. This increased dose of infliximab may translate into increased costs for a payer over time.

A cost-utility analysis of mitoxantrone hydrochloride and interferon beta-1b in the treatment of patients with secondary progressive or progressive relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Information on the cost utility of interferon beta-1b and mitoxantrone hydrochloride, 2 disease-modifying agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of secondary progressive (SP) multiple sclerosis (MS), is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost utility of i.v. mitoxantrone hydrochloride administered every 3 months, s.c. interferon beta-1b administered every other day, and routine supportive care from the perspectives of both the insurer and society. METHODS: We used a Markov model with health states based on the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores from both an insurer's and a societal perspective (including direct and total costs, respectively). Theoretical patients entered the model with an EDSS score of 3; their progression was followed for 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from clinical trial data. Cost and utility inputs were taken from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on all variables. RESULTS: From the insurer's perspective, the incremental cost-utility ratio of mitoxantrone hydrochloride therapy compared with routine supportive care was 58,272 dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. From a societal perspective, mitoxantrone hydrochloride was more effective and less costly than supportive care. From the perspectives of insurers and society, the cost-utility ratios of interferon beta-1b compared with routine supportive care were 338,738 dollars and 245,700 dollars per QALY gained, respectively. When compared with mitoxantrone hydrochloride, interferon beta-1b had an incremental cost-utility ratio of 741,331 dollars and 658,402 dollars per QALY from the insurer's and society's perspectives, respectively. Cost-utility ratios for mitoxantrone hydrochloride were sensitive to acquisition and administration costs of therapy and to effectiveness at slowing disease progression. Cost-utility ratios for interferon beta-1b were not sensitive to any of the variables included in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Mitoxantrone hydrochloride is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with SPMS or progressive relapsing MS from an insurer' perspective and is cost saving from a societal perspective. Interferon beta-1b is not likely an efficient treatment using conventional comparisons for cost-effectiveness. This analysis has potentially important implications for policy implementation; however, decisions about which agent to use for each patient should consider the treatment's adverse-event profile, the method of administration, and the patient's preferences for these factors.

Health-related quality of life in early rheumatoid arthritis: impact of disease and treatment response.

OBJECTIVE: To document the burden of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on health-related quality of life (HQL) and compare changes in HQL across 2 treatments. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of HQL scores among patients enrolled in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized control trial of early RA treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 424 patients with early RA were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups: etanercept or methotrexate. Patients were treated and followed for 52 weeks. Health-related quality of life was assessed before and throughout treatment using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). The HQL burden of RA was established by comparing SF-36 scale scores to general US population norms. The impact of treatment on HQL was determined by comparing scores on both SF-36 and HAQ scales. RESULTS: Before treatment, RA patients showed significant decrements in scores on all SF-36 scales and summary measures in comparison with age- and sex-matched general US population norms, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) F(8,2815) = 204.6, P < .0001. After 52 weeks of treatment, 7 of 8 SF-36 scales and the physical summary measure remained significantly below the general US population norm, MANOVA F(8,2815) = 41.9, P < .0001. Patients randomized to etanercept showed significantly better HQL improvement earlier in treatment than patients randomized to methotrexate on the SF-36 physical summary, MANOVA F(10,4230) = 6.1, P< .0001, the SF-36 arthritis-specific health index, MANOVA F(10,4230) = 8.5, P < .0001, and the HAQ, MANOVA F(10,4230) = 14.7, P < .0001. At 52 weeks, there were no significant differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rheumatoid arthritis places tremendous disease burden on patients' HQL. Successful treatment of early RA improved HQL. Etanercept showed a rapid HQL response.

Direct and indirect costs of asthma to an employer.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition of the airways that has a significant effect on the use of health care resources. OBJECTIVE: This study is the first of its kind to estimate the overall cost of asthma to a major employer in the United States and to profile the nature of the asthma expenses. METHODS: The annual per capita cost of asthma was determined for beneficiaries of a major employer by analyzing medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims data. The incremental cost of asthma was determined by using a case-control method matching asthmatic patients to individuals with no record of asthma treatment. RESULTS: The use of health care services, as well as the rate of disability, was substantially higher among asthmatic patients than among control subjects. Annual per capita employer expenditures for asthmatic patients were approximately 2.5 times those for control subjects ($5385 vs. $2121, respectively). Among asthmatic employees with disability claims, total costs were approximately 3 times higher than those among disability claimants in the employee control sample ($14,827 vs. $5280). For asthmatic employees, wage-replacement costs for workdays lost as a result of disability and sporadic absenteeism (40%) accounted for almost as much as did medical care (43%). CONCLUSION: Failure to account fully for the broader consequences of asthma in terms of indirect and comorbid treatment costs would result in a significant underassessment of the cost of asthma to an employer.