Cost-Minimization Analysis of Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Administered by Subcutaneous Injections in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous formulation of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) was preferred due to favored self-administration and would be an economical treatment option for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This study was to compare the economic impact of biologic DMARDs administered by subcutaneous injection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had inadequate response to conventional DMARDs. METHODS: The cost-minimization analysis was conducted to estimate the lifetime health care costs of treatment sequences with subcutaneous biologic DMARDs as first-line therapy from a health care system perspective. The Markov model was developed to represent the transitions through treatment sequences based on American College of Rheumatology response rate and discontinuation rate. The health care costs comprised the cost of medications, administration, dispensing, outpatient visits, test/diagnostic examination, palliative therapy and treatment of serious infection. All costs were expressed in 2016 Korean Won (KRW) and discounted at 5%. RESULTS: The mean lifetime health care cost per patient was lowest in the etanercept sequence, which was estimated at KRW 63,441,679. The incremental costs of the treatment sequence started with adalimumab, golimumab, abatacept, and tocilizumab were KRW 7,985,730, KRW 4,064,669, KRW 2,869,947, and KRW 4,282,833, respectively, relative to etanercept sequence. These differences in costs mainly were attributable to medication costs. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that etanercept represented the option with the lowest cost compared with comparators. CONCLUSION: This study found that etanercept is likely a cost-saving treatment option among subcutaneous biologic DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Comparative Effectiveness of Biologic DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to conventional DMARDs: Using a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) extend the treatment choices for rheumatoid arthritis patients with insufficient response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs). These agents have considerable efficacy compared with conventional DMARDs, but only a few head-to-head comparisons among these agents have been performed. The objective of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the relative efficacy of Certolizumab with conventional DMARD to licensed bDMARD with cDMARD therapy for patients who failed to prior cDMARD treatment under the condition of the reimbursement coverage criteria in Korea. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE and Cochrane library. Key endpoints were the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses of 20/50/70 at six months. Bayesian outcomes were calculated as median of treatment effect, probability of the best, Odds Ratio (OR) and probability that OR was greater than one. RESULTS: Compared with other bDMARDs, Certolizumab were associated with higher or comparable ACR response rates; in ACR20, the OR (probability of OR>1) was 2.08 (92.6%) for Adalimumab, 1.86 (85.7%) for Etanercept, 1.89 (79.5%) for Golimumab, 2.36 (92.1%) for Infliximab, 1.79 (87.0%) for Abatacept, 1.74 (80.8%) for Rituximab and 1.82 (86.8%) for Tocilizaumab. In ACR50 and ACR70, the ORs did not present significant differences. CONCLUSION: Certolizaumab with cDMARD was more effective or comparable than other bDMARDs in patients who failed prior cDMARD treatment.