Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Joensuu JT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4363598 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

Joensuu Jaana T JT Huoponen Saara S Aaltonen Kalle J KJ Konttinen Yrjö T YT Nordström Dan D Blom Marja M

PloS one 20150317 3

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search covering Med ...[more]

PMID: 25781999

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite recommendations suggesting that biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) should be used in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), up to one-third of patients with RA are treated with monotherapy. The objective of the systematic literature review reported here was to evaluate the clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy in the treatment of RA. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Central Trials Register (to April 11, 2017) and the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism conference proceedings (2010-2016) were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy for RA in adults. Forty-four monotherapy studies of abatacept, adalimumab, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, sarilumab, sirukumab, tocilizumab, and tofacitinib reported in 71 publications were identified. Tocilizumab had the most studies (14), followed by etanercept (10) and adalimumab (9). These b/tsDMARDs were consistently shown to be efficacious treatments, regardless of whether patients were intolerant of or had never used conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. However, better treatment outcomes were usually achieved with combination therapy, and this was observed for all b/tsDMARDs assessed by this review. Only a few studies provided a head-to-head comparison between b/tsDMARD treatments or between b/tsDMARD monotherapy and combination therapy, and as many were initial RA treatments they were not generalizable to usual care. In conclusion, evidence from randomized trials suggests that the b/tsDMARDs studied are effective as monotherapy. In general, some patient responses seem better with combination therapy and the durability of monotherapy is less than combination therapy. There is, however, a need for longer-term head-to-head trials to establish positioning of these interventions in the treatment algorithm for RA. FUNDING:Pfizer.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available on the journal website.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic autoimmune inflammation of the colon. The condition significantly decreases quality of life and generates a substantial economic burden for healthcare payers, patients and the society in which they live. Some patients require chronic pharmacotherapy, and access to novel biologic drugs might be crucial for long-term remission. The analyses of cost-effectiveness for biologic drugs are necessary to assess their efficiency and provide the best available drugs to patients. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to collect and assess the quality of economic analyses carried out for biologic agents used in the treatment of UC, as well as to summarize evidence on the drivers of cost-effectiveness and evaluate the transferability and generalizability of conclusions. METHODS:A systematic database review was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and CRD0. Both authors independently reviewed the identified articles to determine their eligibility for final review. Hand searching of references in collected papers was also performed to find any relevant articles. The reporting quality of economic analyses included was evaluated by two reviewers using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement checklist. We reviewed the sensitivity analyses in cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the variables that may have changed the conclusions of the study. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were selected by identifying uncertain parameters that caused the highest change of the results of the analyses compared with base-case results. RESULTS:Of the 576 identified records, 87 were excluded as duplicates and 16 studies were included in the final review; evaluations for Canada, the UK and Poland were mostly performed. The majority of the evaluations revealed were performed for infliximab (approximately 75% of total volume); however, some assessments were also performed for adalimumab (50%) and golimumab (31%). Only three analyses were conducted for vedolizumab, whereas no relevant studies were found for etrolizumab and tofacitinib. The reporting quality of the included economic analyses was assessed as high, with an average score of 21 points per 24 maximum possible (range 14-23 points according to the ISPOR CHEERS statement checklist). In the case of most analyses, quality-adjusted life-years were used as a clinical outcome, and endpoints such as remission, response and mucosal healing were less common. The higher clinical effectiveness (based on response rates) of biological treatment over non-biological treatments was presented in revealed analyses. The incremental cost-utility ratios for biologics, compared with standard care, varied significantly between the studies and ranged from US$36,309 to US$456,979. The lowest value was obtained for infliximab and the highest for the treatment scheme including infliximab 5 mg/kg and infliximab 10 mg/kg + adalimumab. The change of utility weights and clinical parameters had the most significant influence on the results of the analysis; the variable related to surgery was the least sensitive. CONCLUSIONS:Limited data on the cost-effectiveness of UC therapy were identified. In the majority of studies, the lack of cost-effectiveness was revealed for biologics, which was associated with their high costs. Clinical outcomes are transferable to other countries and could be generalized; however, cost inputs are country-specific and therefore limit the transferability and generalizability of conclusions. The key drivers and variables that showed the greatest effect on the analysis results were utility weights and clinical parameters.

Project description:Introduction: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK-i), a class of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tDMARDs), are suggested as second or third-line therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Synthesized cost-effective evidence would aid in informed decision-making given the similar clinical effectiveness of JAKi, but incongruent cost-effectiveness reports. Methods: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers’ cost-effective analysis registry. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model and the heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Modified economic evaluation bias checklist was used to assess the quality of selected studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’s test. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was performed to assess the certainty of outcomes presented. Results: We included seventeen relevant studies for systematic review, of which fifteen were eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that JAK-i is cost-effective compared to csDMARDS/bDMARDs with a pooled INB (INBp) of $19,886 (95% CI, 1,635 to 38,137) but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99.14). As a second-line treatment for csDMARD failed RA, JAK-i is cost-effective than csDMARD/bDMARD with a pooled INB of $23,144 (74.1–46,214) and high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.67). But on a separate analysis JAK-i as second-line treatment is not cost-effective than TNF-a-i (INBp = $25,813, -5,714 to 57,340). However, leave-one-out analysis found that omitting a single outlier makes JAK-i cost-effective. Further, JAK-i is not cost-effective as a third-line treatment for csDMARD-TNF-a-I failed RA, compared to csDMARDs/bDMARDs with INBp $26,157 (-7,284 to 59,598). Conclusion: Meta-analysis suggests that JAK-i is cost-effective when used after csDMARD failure but not cost-effective when used after csDMARD-TNF-a-i failure with low certainty of evidence. Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021222541, identifier CRD42021222541

Project description:BackgroundSince receiving a positive recommendation in England, Wales and Scotland, tocilizumab (TCZ) is one of the options available to clinicians for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in the UK.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding TCZ to the current treatment sequence of RA patients from a UK payer's perspective over a patient lifetime horizon.MethodsAn individual sampling model was developed to synthesise all clinical and economic inputs. Two scenarios were explored separately: patients contraindicated to methotrexate (MTX) and those MTX tolerant. For each scenario, the analysis compared three strategies. The standard of care (SoC) strategy included a sequence of the most commonly prescribed biologics; the other two comparator strategies considered the addition of TCZ to SoC at first line and second line. Patient characteristics were representative of UK patients. Treatment efficacy and quality-of-life evidence were synthesised from clinical trials and secondary sources. An analysis of a patient registry informed the model parameters regarding treatment discontinuation. The safety profile of all treatments in a given strategy was based on a network meta-analysis and literature review. Resource utilisation, treatment acquisition, administration, monitoring and adverse event treatment costs were considered. All costs reflect 2012 prices. Uncertainty in model parameters was explored by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsIn the MTX-contraindicated population, if TCZ was added to the SoC in first line, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £7,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; if added in second line, the estimated ICER was £11,400 per QALY. In the MTX-tolerant population, the estimated costs and QALYs of the TCZ strategy were similar to those of the SoC strategy. Sensitivity analysis showed that parameters that affect the treatment cost (such as patient weight) can have a noticeable impact on the overall cost-effectiveness results. The majority of the other sensitivity analyses resulted in modest changes to the ICER.ConclusionFor the treatment of RA in MTX-tolerant and contraindicated patients, the addition of TCZ to the SoC was estimated to be a cost-effective strategy.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib-containing treatment sequences versus sequences containing only standard biological therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR population) and in patients previously treated with methotrexate (MTX) who show an inadequate response to second-line therapy with any tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi-IR population). METHODS:A patient-level microsimulation model estimated, from the perspective of the Spanish Public NHS, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences starting with tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) followed by biological therapies versus sequences of biological treatments only. Concomitant treatment with MTX was considered. Model's parameters comprised demographic and clinical inputs (initial Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score and clinical response to short- and long-term treatment). Efficacy was measured by means of HAQ score changes using mixed treatment comparisons and data from long-term extension (LTE) trials. Serious adverse events (SAEs) data were derived from the literature. Total cost estimation (€, 2018) included drug acquisition, parenteral administration, disease progression and SAE management. RESULTS:In the csDMARD-IR population, sequences starting with tofacitinib proved dominant options (more QALYs and lower costs) versus the corresponding sequences without tofacitinib. In the TNFi-IR population, first-line treatment with tofacitinib+MTX followed by scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX proved dominant versus scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX; and tofacitinib+MTX?scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX versus scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX was less effective but remained a cost-saving option. CONCLUSIONS:Inclusion of tofacitinib seems a dominant strategy in moderate-to-severe RA patients after csDMARDs failure. Tofacitinib, as initial third-line therapy, proved a cost-saving strategy (€-?337,489/QALY foregone) in moderate-to-severe TNFi-IR RA patients. Key points • Therapeutical approach in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) consisted in sequences of several therapies during patient lifetime. • Treatment sequences initiating with tofacitinib followed by biological drugs provided higher health effects in csDMARDs-IR population, compared with sequences containing only biological drugs. • In both csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR RA populations, initiating treatment with tofacitinib was associated to lower treatment costs for the Spanish National Health System.

Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets