Dataset Information

Economic Benefit from Improvements in Quality of Life with Upadacitinib: Comparisons with Tofacitinib and Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To compare the economic benefit of upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy from improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Data were analyzed from two trials of upadacitinib (SELECT-NEXT and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY) and one trial of tofacitinib (ORAL-Standard) that collected HRQOL measurements using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey in patients with RA. Direct medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) for patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and methotrexate were derived from observed SF-36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in the SELECT trials using a regression algorithm. Direct medical costs PPPM for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily were obtained from a published analysis of SF-36 PCS and MCS scores observed in the ORAL-Standard trial. Short-term (12-14 weeks) and long-term (48 weeks) estimates of direct medical costs PPPM were compared between upadacitinib and tofacitinib and between upadacitinib and methotrexate.

Results

Over 12 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $252 lower (95% CI $72, $446) for upadacitinib-treated patients versus tofacitinib-treated patients. Medical costs PPPM at weeks 24 and 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $1759; 95% CI $1162, $2449) were significantly lower for upadacitinib than for tofacitinib. Over 14 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $399 lower (95% CI $158, $620) for patients treated with upadacitinib monotherapy compared with those treated with methotrexate alone. Direct medical costs at week 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $2044; 95% CI $1221, $2846) were significantly lower for upadacitinib monotherapy compared with methotrexate alone.

Conclusion

In the short and long term, upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy were associated with significantly lower direct medical costs for patients with RA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02675426, NCT02706951, and NCT00853385.

SUBMITTER: Bergman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572211 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUpadacitinib and tofacitinib are Janus kinase inhibitors approved for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing their effectiveness, this study assessed the efficacy of upadacitinib 15 mg once-daily monotherapy/combination therapy against tofacitinib 5 mg twice-daily combination therapy among patients with RA using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).MethodsThe first of two MAICs used individual patient data (IPD) from the 14-week SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trial (upadacitinib [n = 217] vs. methotrexate [n = 216]) and published data from the ORAL Standard trial (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 204] vs. methotrexate [n = 108]). The second MAIC used IPD from the 26-week SELECT-COMPARE trial (upadacitinib + methotrexate [n = 647] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 324]) and published data from ORAL Strategy (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 376] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 386]). Data from patients in the upadacitinib trials were re-weighted based on age, sex, race, swollen joint count 66/28, tender joint count 68/28, C-reactive protein (CRP), and patients' global assessments to match the patient characteristics in tofacitinib trials. After matching, ACR20/50/70 and clinical remission (SDAI[CRP] ≤ 3.3, CDAI ≤ 2.8, DAS28-ESR/CRP < 2.6) were compared for upadacitinib vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at month 3 and upadacitinib + methotrexate vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at months 3 and 6 using Wald tests.ResultsAt month 3, upadacitinib monotherapy patients experienced significantly larger improvement in ACR70 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (mean difference in difference [DID]: 9.9%; p = 0.019), while upadacitinib + methotrexate was associated with higher ACR50 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (DID: 12.9%; p = 0.011). At month 6, upadacitinib + methotrexate patients experienced significantly larger improvement in SDAI/CDAI/DAS28-ESR clinical remission compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate, with DIDs of 9.1% (p = 0.011), 7.5% (p = 0.038), and 11.3% (p = 0.002), respectively.ConclusionsCompared to tofacitinib combination therapy, treatment with upadacitinib monotherapy and combination therapy were associated with improved outcomes at 3/6 months (monotherapy: ACR70; combination: ACR50, SDAI, CDAI, and DAS28-ESR remission).

Project description:BackgroundAs significant advances in the field of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is a great need to identify the healthcare outcomes such as treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with various treatment options. This study aims to identify the difference in the treatment satisfaction and HRQoL of patients with RA using different treatment options, by comparing the treatment satisfaction and HRQoL in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib and adalimumab in real-world settings in Korea, using propensity score methods.MethodsIn this non-interventional, multicenter, cross-sectional study (NCT03703817), a total of 410 patients with RA diagnosis were recruited in 21 university-based hospitals throughout Korea. The treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were assessed using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) and EQ-5D questionnaires self-reported by the patients. This study compared outcomes between two drug groups in unweighted, greedy matching, and stabilized inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) samples using propensity score.ResultsIn all three samples, tofacitinib group showed higher convenience domain of TSQM than that in the adalimumab group, but not effectiveness, side effects, and global satisfaction domains. Multivariable analysis using the covariates of demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants also showed consistent results in TSQM. No statistical difference in EQ-5D-based HRQoL was identified between two drug groups in all three samples.ConclusionsThis study identified that tofacitinib shows higher treatment satisfaction in the convenience domain of TSQM rather than adalimumab, suggesting that various factors such as drug formulation, route or frequency of administration, and storage can have an impact on the treatment satisfaction, especially the convenience domain. These findings may be useful to patients and physicians when determining treatment options.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03703817.

Project description:IntroductionThe objective of this analysis was to assess disease activity metrics using a variety of disease outcome measures following methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal in ORAL Shift, a phase 3b/4 study of tofacitinib with/without MTX, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA).MethodsPatients aged ≥ 18 years with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX received open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus MTX for 24 weeks. In the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase, those who had achieved CDAI LDA (≤ 10) at week 24 were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib monotherapy or continued tofacitinib plus MTX. Efficacy analyses were performed in subgroups defined by whether remission and/or LDA had been achieved at week 24 with: Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-4(ESR)], Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), CDAI and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI); or DAS28-4[C-reactive protein(CRP)] < 2.4/ < 2.6/ < 2.9/ ≤ 3.2.ResultsFive hundred and thirty patients received treatment in the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase. Proportions of patients achieving each disease activity criterion at week 24 varied by metric. Across disease activity metrics [excluding DAS28-4(ESR) remission], 58-89% of patients per group, and numerically more patients receiving tofacitinib plus MTX, achieved the same criterion at week 48 as at week 24. Differences between groups in least squares mean change from baseline (Δ) DAS28-4(ESR) from week 24-48 favoured tofacitinib plus MTX (nominal p values < 0.05). RAPID3 and DAS28-4(CRP) estimated a higher proportion of patients with acceptable disease state versus DAS28-4(ESR), CDAI remission and SDAI remission.ConclusionResponse rates at the beginning of the double-blind phase varied across metrics. A consistent trend towards higher response rates with tofacitinib plus MTX was observed across metrics after randomisation, with nominal differences in DAS28-4(ESR) responses. Compared with continued combination therapy, MTX withdrawal did not lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in the response to tofacitinib. DAS28-4(CRP) and RAPID3 were the least stringent metrics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02831855.