Dataset Information

A Cost per Responder Model for Abatacept versus Adalimumab Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Seropositivity.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:The primary objective of this study was to compare the cost per responder (CPR) between abatacept and adalimumab among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Patients and Methods:CPR analysis was conducted from a US payer perspective over 24 weeks for early moderate-to-severe seropositive RA patients. Efficacy data (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] improvement criteria [ACR20/50/70] and DAS28-C reactive protein <2.6) for abatacept and adalimumab were sourced from the post hoc analysis of the Early AMPLE trial (NCT02557100). Medication costs were considered assuming complete adherence. A 30% rebate was applied for adalimumab in the base case. Results:At week 24, the total per patient pharmacy cost was $26,273.34 and $21,731.18, whereas the CPR (using ACR70 as the responder definition) was $46,337.46 and $74,935.10 (difference of -$28,597.64) for abatacept and adalimumab, respectively. The CPR was consistently lower for abatacept compared to adalimumab across all clinical measures, with differences ranging from -$7099.32 to -$43,608.97. Conclusion:While the pharmacy cost was higher for abatacept compared to adalimumab, due to its higher clinical efficacy, the CPR was consistently lower for seropositive RA patients treated with abatacept. The results may be useful for healthcare decision-makers in understanding how to optimize treatment for seropositive RA patients while minimizing costs in today's budget-constrained health environment.

SUBMITTER: Park SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7571575 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Cost per Responder Model for Abatacept versus Adalimumab Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Seropositivity.

Park Sang Hee SH Han Xue X Lobo Francis F Nanji Sakina S Patel Dipen D

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR 20201015

<h4>Purpose</h4>The primary objective of this study was to compare the cost per responder (CPR) between abatacept and adalimumab among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>CPR analysis was conducted from a US payer perspective over 24 weeks for early moderate-to-severe seropositive RA patients. Efficacy data (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] improvement criteria [ACR20/50/70] and DAS28-C reactive protein <2.6) for abatacept and adalimumab were source ...[more]

PMID: 33116698

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThere is a need for comparative studies to provide evidence-based treatment guidance for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study was undertaken as the first head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and SC adalimumab, both administered along with background methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of RA.MethodsPatients with active RA who were naive to treatment with biologic agents and had an inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned to receive 125 mg SC abatacept weekly or 40 mg SC adalimumab biweekly, both given in combination with MTX, in a 2-year study. The primary end point was treatment noninferiority, assessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year.ResultsOf the 646 patients who were randomized and treated, 86.2% receiving SC abatacept and 82% receiving SC adalimumab completed 12 months of treatment. At 1 year, 64.8% of patients in the SC abatacept group and 63.4% in the SC adalimumab group demonstrated an ACR20 response; the estimated difference between groups was 1.8% (95% confidence interval -5.6%, 9.2%), thus demonstrating the noninferiority of abatacept compared to adalimumab. All efficacy measures showed similar results and kinetics of response between treatments. The rate of radiographic nonprogression (defined as a total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS] less than or equal to the smallest detectable change) was 84.8% for SC abatacept-treated patients and 88.6% for SC adalimumab-treated patients, while the mean change from baseline in the total SHS was 0.58 and 0.38, respectively. In the SC abatacept and SC adalimumab groups, the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively, and the rate of serious infections was 2.2% and 2.7%, respectively. In patients treated with SC abatacept, the frequency of discontinuations due to AEs was 3.5% and discontinuations due to SAEs was 1.3%, while in patients treated with SC adalimumab, the frequencies were 6.1% and 3%, respectively. Injection site reactions occurred in 3.8% of patients receiving SC abatacept compared to 9.1% of patients receiving SC adalimumab (P=0.006).ConclusionThe results demonstrate that SC abatacept and SC adalimumab have comparable efficacy in patients with RA, as shown by similar kinetics of response and comparable inhibition of radiographic progression over 1 year of treatment. The safety was generally similar, other than the occurrence of significantly more local injection site reactions in patients treated with SC adalimumab.

Project description:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease affecting synovial joints. Patients with persistent, active disease have traditionally been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (eg, methotrexate) or biologic agents (eg, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists). However, patients may discontinue these treatments due to toxicity, infection, or lack of efficacy. Two additional biologic therapies-rituximab and abatacept-are currently available for TNF-antagonist inadequate responders. Abatacept is also indicated for inadequate responders to traditional DMARDs.The aims of this review was to provide an overview of the issues surrounding the treatment of RA patients experiencing inadequate responses to current treatment and to discuss the current and future impact of abatacept on the RA treatment armamentarium.The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases were searched (search dates: January 1, 2000-September 19, 2007) using the terms abatacept or CTLA-4 or Orencia with rheumatoid arthritis. Full text articles in English were selected for relevance, and only articles presenting primary clinical trial data from randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials of abatacept were included. This review focused on the Phase III trials of abatacept in methotrexate and/or TNF-antagonist inadequate responders, as these trials had the largest number of patients and the longest study durations.The literature search initially yielded 848 papers. A total of 12 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Abatacept is a novel agent that has been reported to reduce the signs and symptoms of RA in patients with active RA with an inadequate response to DMARDs and/or TNF-antagonist treatment. In both of these patient populations, treatment with abatacept was found to provide clinically meaningful health-related quality-of-life benefits, such as improvements in physical function, activity limitation, sleep, and fatigue. Abatacept was reported to have a consistent safety and tolerability profile, with a low rate (3.5%-4.2%) of discontinuation due to adverse events.The efficacy and tolerability data from Phase III clinical trials suggest that abatacept is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate and/or TNF antagonists.

Dataset Information

A Cost per Responder Model for Abatacept versus Adalimumab Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Seropositivity.

Publications

A Cost per Responder Model for Abatacept versus Adalimumab Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Seropositivity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets