Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequences containing tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Navarro F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7497326 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequences containing tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain.

Navarro F F Martinez-Sesmero J M JM Balsa A A Peral C C Montoro M M Valderrama M M Gómez S S de Andrés-Nogales F F Casado M A MA Oyagüez Itziar I

Clinical rheumatology 20200417 10

<h4>Objective</h4>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 populat ...[more]

PMID: 32303858

Similar Datasets

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:The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of tofacitinib, a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, recently approved for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis in patients who have failed previous treatment with methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other databases till 3 May 2013. All included studies were analyzed with the use of the Review Manager 5.1.0. software according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement protocol. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tofacitinib with placebo were identified. Two of them additionally provided the comparison with adalimumab. However, only eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The overall results of the meta-analysis showed that tofacitinib provided a statistically significant improvement according to the response criteria (ACR20/50/70) after 12 weeks of treatment when compared to placebo (p < 0.00001). Moreover, it was demonstrated that tofacitinib was significantly superior to adalimumab in achieving the ACR50 response criteria at week 12 (p = 0.003). For the safety analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between tofacitinib-, adalimumab-, and placebo-treated patients in respect to the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation due to adverse reactions (p > 0.05). The findings of this systematic review with meta-analysis indicate that tofacitinib monotherapy or with background methotrexate provides early statistically significant and clinically important improvement in rheumatoid arthritis symptoms and has an acceptable safety profile comparable to that of placebo. The results of the present meta-analysis show that the frequency of serious adverse events was not increased after tofacitinib treatment. In addition, tofacitinib might provide an effective treatment option compared to intravenous or subcutaneous biological DMARDs, as suggested by the result of the comparison made regarding tofacitinib vs. adalimumab ACR50 response rate.

Project description:IntroductionCurrently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP+) patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsCorEvitas (formerly known as CORRONA) Registry patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were CCP+ before initiating abatacept or tofacitinib (December 2012 onwards through October 2019), had 6-month follow-up data (baseline and 6-month Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), and were not in remission at index were included. Patients were frequency matched 1:1 by prior biologic use before propensity score matching (PSM). Primary (mean change [D] in CDAI) and secondary outcomes 6 months after index were compared using mixed-effects models adjusted for variables that remained unbalanced after PSM.ResultsFollowing PSM, most baseline characteristics for 291 patient pairs were well balanced between treatments, although fewer patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib received prior non-TNFi biologic DMARDs, and patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib had a higher physician global assessment score, patient-reported fatigue, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in mean [D] from baseline in CDAI at 6 months with abatacept versus tofacitinib (P = 0.936). Patients naïve for b/tsDMARDs initiating abatacept had a numerically greater mean [D] in CDAI at 6 months versus tofacitinib, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.662). There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes.ConclusionsIn adjusted analyses, CCP+ patients with RA initiating treatment with abatacept versus tofacitinib did not show a statistically significant difference in reducing disease activity or improving patient-reported outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceThere is a need for observational studies to supplement evidence from clinical trials, and the target trial emulation (TTE) framework can help avoid biases that can be introduced when treatments are compared crudely using observational data by applying design principles for randomized clinical trials. Adalimumab (ADA) and tofacitinib (TOF) were shown to be equivalent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a randomized clinical trial, but to our knowledge, these drugs have not been compared head-to-head using routinely collected clinical data and the TTE framework.ObjectiveTo emulate a randomized clinical trial comparing ADA vs TOF in patients with RA who were new users of a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD).Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study emulating a randomized clinical trial of ADA vs TOF included Australian adults aged 18 years or older with RA in the Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology (OPAL) data set. Patients were included if they initiated ADA or TOF between October 1, 2015, and April 1, 2021; were new b/tsDMARD users; and had at least 1 component of the disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) recorded at baseline or during follow-up.InterventionTreatment with either ADA (40 mg every 14 days) or TOF (10 mg daily).Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the estimated average treatment effect, defined as the difference in mean DAS28-CRP among patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA at 3 and 9 months after initiating treatment. Missing DAS28-CRP data were multiply imputed. Stable balancing weights were used to account for nonrandomized treatment assignment.ResultsA total of 842 patients were identified, including 569 treated with ADA (387 [68.0%] female; median age, 56 years [IQR, 47-66 years]) and 273 treated with TOF (201 [73.6%] female; median age, 59 years [IQR, 51-68 years]). After applying stable balancing weights, mean DAS28-CRP in the ADA group was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.6 (95% CI, 2.5-2.7) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.2-2.4) at 9 months; in the TOF group, it was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.4 (95% CI, 2.2-2.5) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.1-2.4) at 9 months. The estimated average treatment effect was -0.2 (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.03; P = .02) at 3 months and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.1; P = .60) at 9 months.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, there was a modest but statistically significant reduction in DAS28-CRP at 3 months for patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA and no difference between treatment groups at 9 months. Three months of treatment with either drug led to clinically relevant average reductions in mean DAS28-CRP, consistent with remission.

Project description:Background and objectivesEconomic 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsWhen 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.

Project description:IntroductionRisk of herpes zoster (HZ) is increased with Janus kinase inhibitor use. We evaluated clinical study data relating to HZ management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving tofacitinib.MethodsThis post hoc analysis included data from 21 RA and 3 PsA clinical studies; data were pooled for tofacitinib doses. Outcomes of HZ events (serious and non-serious) and tofacitinib treatment changes were evaluated in response to first and second HZ events. Median time to resolution was stratified by dermatomal involvement, history of HZ prior to tofacitinib, changes to tofacitinib treatment, anti-viral and corticosteroid use, and tofacitinib dose.ResultsSeven hundred eighty-three (11.1%, N = 7061) patients with RA experienced ≥ 1 HZ event, 63 (8.0%) of whom had ≥ 2 HZ events. In patients with PsA, 36 (4.6%, N = 783) experienced ≥ 1 HZ event, 1 (2.8%) of whom had ≥ 2 HZ events. For most HZ events, tofacitinib treatment was unchanged or temporarily discontinued. The majority of patients received anti-viral treatment, most within 3 days of onset. Post-herpetic neuralgia developed in 6.9% and 3.2% of patients with RA with first and second events, respectively, and in 2.8% of patients with PsA with a first event. Most first and second events resolved (RA: 97.6% and 96.8%, respectively; PsA: 94.4% and 100%, respectively). Median time to resolution was 22.0 days for first and 15.0 days for second events for RA and 20.5 days for first and 11.0 days for second events (n = 1) for PsA. Time to resolution of first events for RA and PsA was generally numerically shorter for patients with single dermatomal HZ, history of HZ, or anti-viral use versus those without.ConclusionAmong patients receiving tofacitinib, recurrent events were more common in patients with RA versus PsA; HZ duration was shorter for repeat events.Trial registrationNCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02187055, NCT00413699, NCT00661661, NCT01877668, NCT01882439, NCT01976364.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequences containing tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequences containing tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets