Two-year cost effectiveness between two gradual tapering strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: cost-utility analysis of the TARA trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the 2-year cost-utility ratio between tapering conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) first followed by the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two-year data of the Tapering strategies in Rheumatoid Arthritis trial were used. Patients with RA, who used both a csDMARD and a TNF-inhibitor and had a well-controlled disease (disease activity score ≤2.4 and swollen joint count≤1) for at least 3 months, were randomised into gradual tapering the csDMARD first followed by the TNF-inhibitor, or vice versa. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of life questionnaire with 5 dimensions. Healthcare and productivity costs were calculated with data from patient records and questionnaires. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the incremental net monetary benefit were used to assess cost effectiveness between both tapering strategies. RESULTS: 94 patients started tapering their TNF-inhibitor first, while the other 95 tapered their csDMARD first. QALYs (SD) were, respectively, 1.64 (0.22) and 1.65 (0.22). Medication costs were significantly lower in the patients who tapered the TNF-inhibitor first, while indirect cost were higher due to more productivity loss (p=0.10). Therefore, total costs (SD) were €38 833 (€39 616) for tapering csDMARDs first, and €39 442 (€47 271) for tapering the TNF-inhibitor (p=0.88). For willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels <€83 800 tapering, the csDMARD first has the highest probability of being cost effective, while for WTP levels >€83 800 tapering the TNF-inhibitor first has the highest probability. CONCLUSION: Our economic evaluation shows that costs are similar for both tapering strategies. Regardless of the WTP, tapering either the TNF-inhibitor or the csDMARD first is equally cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2754.

Best cost-effectiveness and worker productivity with initial triple DMARD therapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: cost-utility analysis of the tREACH trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate direct and indirect costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for different initial treatment strategies in very early RA. METHODS: The 1-year data of the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort trial were used. Patients with a high probability (>70%) according to their likelihood of progressing to persistent arthritis, based on the prediction model of Visser, were randomized into one of following initial treatment strategies: (A) initial triple DMARD therapy (iTDT) with glucocorticoids (GCs) intramuscular (n = 91); (B) iTDT with an oral GC tapering scheme (n = 93); and (C) initial MTX monotherapy (iMM) with GCs similar to B (n = 97). Data on QALYs, measured with the Dutch EuroQol, and direct and indirect cost were used. Direct costs are costs of treatment and medical consumption, whereas indirect costs are costs due to loss of productivity. RESULTS: Average QALYs (sd) for A, B and C were, respectively, 0.75 (0.12), 0.75 (0.10) and 0.73 (0.13) for Dutch EuroQol. Highest total costs per QALY (sd) were, respectively, €12748 (€18767), €10 380 (€15 608) and €17 408 (€21 828) for strategy A, B and C (P = 0.012, B vs C). Direct as well as indirect costs were higher with iMM (strategy C) compared with iTDT (strategy B). Higher direct costs were due to ∼40% more biologic usage over time. Higher indirect costs, on the other hand, were caused by more long-term sickness and reduction in contract hours. iTDT was >95% cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds compared with iMM. CONCLUSION: iTDT was more cost-effective and had better worker productivity compared with iMM.

Role of ultrasonography in diagnosing early rheumatoid arthritis and remission of rheumatoid arthritis--a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasonography (US) might have an added value to clinical examination in diagnosing early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and assessing remission of RA. We aimed to clarify the added value of US in RA in these situations performing a systematic review. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for RA, US, diagnosis and remission. Methodological quality was assessed; the wide variability in the design of studies prohibited pooling of results. RESULTS: Six papers on the added value of US diagnosing early RA were found, in which at least bilateral metacarpophalangeal (MCP), wrists and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints were scanned. Compared to clinical examination, US was superior with regard to detecting synovitis and predicting progression to persistent arthritis or RA. Eleven papers on assessing remission were identified, in which at least the wrist and the MCP joints of the dominant hand were scanned. Often US detected inflammation in patients clinically in remission, irrespective of the remission criteria used. Power Doppler signs of synovitis predicted X-ray progression and future flare in patients clinically in remission. CONCLUSIONS: US appears to have added value to clinical examination for diagnosing of RA when scanning at least MCP, wrist and MTP joints, and, when evaluating remission of RA, scanning at least wrist and MCP joints of the dominant hand. For both purposes primarily power Doppler US might be used since its results are less equivocal than those of greyscale US.

Treatment decisions and related costs differ significantly depending on the choice of a disease activity index in RA, according to 1987 and 2010 classification criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic and economic consequences of various disease activity indices (DAIs) in RA according to 1987 and 2010 criteria. METHODS: Data on disease activity states from all sustained visits were assessed from all patients who participate in the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) study, a stratified randomized trial to evaluate different treatment strategies in patients with a symptom duration of <1 year. Frequencies of treatment adaptations, based upon exclusive thresholds of various DAIs, were visualized in reclassification tables. The Stuart-Maxwell test was applied to analyse any significant differences between treatment decisions according to the different DAIs. Simulated annual median medication costs were estimated using the tREACH medication protocol with standard national costs. RESULTS: DAIs perform similar in RA according to 1987 and 2010 criteria. A total of 1104 DASs per DAI were available from 296 patients. DAIs differ significantly, compared with DASs, in classifying a patient's disease state. Consequently, treatment intensifications occur more frequently with SDAI, CDAI and DAS-28 usage, compared with DAS. Tapering treatment occurs less frequently with SDAI and CDAI and more frequently with DAS-28 usage. Simulated annual median medication costs are significantly higher if DAS-28, SDAI and CDAI are used compared with DAS usage. CONCLUSION: Usage of various DAIs in a single patient leads to inconsistent disease state categorizations. Consequently, these inconsistencies significantly influence therapeutic decisions and accompanying costs. As DAI usage is imperative to uphold current European League Against Rheumatology (EULAR) treatment recommendations, physicians should consider these therapeutic and economic consequences before choosing a particular DAI.

Patient preferences for treatment: report from a randomised comparison of treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis (BeSt trial).

OBJECTIVE: To determine treatment preferences among patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis participating in a randomised controlled trial comparing four therapeutic strategies. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 508 participants of the BeSt trial, treated for an average of 2.2 years with either sequential monotherapy (group 1), step-up combination therapy (group 2), initial combination therapy with tapered high-dose prednisone (group 3), or initial combination therapy with infliximab (group 4). Treatment adjustments were made every 3 months to achieve low disease activity (DAS < or =2.4). The questionnaire explored patients' preferences or dislikes for the initial therapy. RESULTS: In total, 440 patients (87%) completed the questionnaire. Despite virtually equal study outcomes at 2 years, more patients in group 4 reported much or very much improvement of general health: 50%, 56%, 46% and 74% in groups 1-4, respectively (overall, P<0.001). Almost half of the patients expressed no preference or aversion for a particular treatment group, 33% had hoped for assignment to group 4 and 38% had hoped against assignment to group 3. This negative perception was much less prominent in patients actually in group 3. Nevertheless, 50% of patients in group 3 disliked having to take prednisone, while only 8% in group 4 disliked going to the hospital for intravenous treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of our retrospective study, patients clearly preferred initial combination therapy with infliximab and disliked taking prednisone. After actual exposure, this preference remained, but the perception of prednisone improved. Patient perceptions need to be addressed when administering treatment.