Cost-utility analysis of treatment options after initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued initial treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), 2 approaches are commonly used: cycling to another TNFi or switching to a drug with another mechanism of action. Currently, there is no consensus on which approach to use first. A report from the IBM MarketScan Research administrative claims database showed adalimumab (cycling strategy) and abatacept (switching strategy) were more commonly prescribed after the first TNFi discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of adalimumab versus abatacept in patients with RA whose initial TNFi therapy failed. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-utility microsimulation state-transition model was used. Our target population was commercially insured adults with RA, the time horizon was 10 years, and we used a payer perspective. Patients not responding to adalimumab or abatacept were moved to the next drug in a sequence of 3 and, finally, to conventional synthetic therapy. Incremental cost-utility ratios (2016 USD per quality-adjusted-life-year gained [QALY)] were calculated. Utilities were derived from a formula based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and age-adjusted comorbidity score. RESULTS: Switching to abatacept after the first TNFi showed an incremental cost of just more than $11,300 over 10 years and achieved a QALY benefit of 0.16 compared with adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68,950 per QALY. Scenario analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range of $44,573 per QALY to $148,558 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that switching to abatacept after TNFi therapy failure had an 80.6% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to abatacept is a cost-effective strategy for patients with RA whose discontinue initial therapy with TNFi. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this project was provided by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award (principal investigator: Maria A. Lopez-Olivo). Karpes Matusevich's work was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Research Award from the University of Texas, School of Public Health Office of Research. Lal reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (employed by Optum). Suarez-Almazor reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Agile Therapeutics, Amag Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead). Chan, Swint, and Cantor have nothing to disclose.

A budget impact analysis for making treatment decisions based on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing in rheumatoid arthritis.

Aim: Given that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titer values respond well to abatacept, the aim of this study was to estimate the annual budget impact of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing and treatment selection based on anti-CCP test results.Materials and methods: Budget impact analysis was conducted for patients with moderate-to-severe RA on biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment from a hypothetical US commercial payer perspective. The following market scenarios were compared: (1) 90% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing do not impact the treatment selection; (2) 100% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing have an impact on treatment selection such that an increased proportion of patients with high titer of ACPA receive abatacept. A hypothetical assumption was made that the use of abatacept would be increased by 2% in Scenario 2 versus 1. Scenario analyses were conducted by varying the target population and rebate rates.Results: In a hypothetical health plan with one million insured adults, 2,181 patients would be on a biologic or JAKi treatment for moderate-to-severe RA. In Scenario 1, the anti-CCP test cost was $186,155 and annual treatment cost was $101,854,295, totaling to $102,040,450. In Scenario 2, the anti-CCP test cost increased by $20,684 and treatment cost increased by $160,467, totaling an overall budget increase of $181,151. This was equivalent to a per member per month (PMPM) increase of $0.015. The budget impact results were consistently negligible across the scenario analyses.Limitations: The analysis only considered testing and medication costs. Some parameters used in the analysis, such as the rebate rates, are not generalizable and health plan-specific.Conclusions: Testing RA patients to learn their ACPA status and increasing use of abatacept among high-titer ACPA patients result in a small increase in the total budget (<2 cents PMPM).

Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitors compared with rituximab as second-line biologic drug in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors as compared with rituximab in Finnish rheumatoid arthritis patients, who have previously been treated with TNF inhibitors. METHODS: A patient-level simulation model was developed to predict costs and outcomes associated with four biological drugs (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab and TNF inhibitors) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Following lack of efficacy or adverse events, the patients were switched to another biological drug until all four options were exhausted. After that, the patients were assumed to receive a 6th line treatment until death. The patients' baseline characteristics and regression models used in the simulation were based on observational data from the National Register for Biological Treatments in Finland. Direct costs comprised drug costs, administration costs, costs of switching, and outpatient and inpatient care, while indirect costs included disability pension and sick leaves due to rheumatoid arthritis. Several subgroup and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Drug costs were the lowest for rituximab, but when administration costs and costs of switching were included, drug costs were the lowest for TNF inhibitors. Abatacept was associated with the highest drug costs, whereas rituximab was associated with the highest healthcare costs. In total, TNF inhibitors had the lowest direct costs, while rituximab had the highest direct costs. The amount of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained ranged from 9.405 for rituximab to 9.661 for TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab were dominant in comparison to RTX. CONCLUSIONS: TNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab had lower costs and higher QALYs than rituximab, and therefore, they were dominant in comparison to rituximab. As TNF inhibitors had the lowest costs and highest QALYs, they were the most cost-effective treatment option.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early rheumatoid arthritis in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background methotrexate) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept with adalimumab. A post hoc analysis showed improved efficacy for abatacept in patients with versus without seropositive, erosive early RA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost per response (ACR20/50/70/90 and HAQ-DI) and patient in remission (DAS28-CRP, CDAI, and SDAI) for abatacept relative to adalimumab, in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada. METHODS: A previously published model was used to compare abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients over 2 years. Clinical inputs were updated based on two subpopulations from the AMPLE trial. Cohort 1 included patients with early RA (disease duration ≤ 6 months), RF and/or ACPA seropositivity, and > 1 radiographic erosion. Cohort 2 included patients with RA in whom at least one of these criteria was absent. RESULTS: For cohort 1, all incremental costs per additional health gain (patient response or patient in remission) favoured abatacept in all countries, except for DAS28-CRP remission in Canada. Cost savings versus adalimumab were greater when more stringent response criteria were applied and also in cohort 1 patient (versus cohort 2 patients). CONCLUSION: The cost per responder and patient in remission favoured abatacept in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA across all the countries. In this patient population, the use of abatacept instead of adalimumab can lead to lower costs in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients.

AIMS: To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010-2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept. RESULTS: Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p < .001; RA-related: $3,364 vs $2,297, p < .001). Monthly RA-related costs were higher for patients switching to a third tDMARD compared to non-switchers remaining on their second tDMARD ($3,835 vs $3,383, p < .001). Switchers to abatacept had significantly lower RA-related monthly costs vs switchers to TNFi ($3,129 vs $3,436, p = .021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p = 0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p = .031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p = .093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p < .001) compared to switchers to abatacept. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.

Alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept or rituximab following failure of initial TNFi in rheumatoid arthritis: the SWITCH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common autoimmune disease in the UK, is a chronic systemic inflammatory arthritis that affects 0.8% of the UK population. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not an alternative class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are comparable to rituximab in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with RA in whom initial tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD and methotrexate (MTX) therapy failed because of inefficacy. DESIGN: Multicentre, Phase III, open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative TNFi and abatacept with that of rituximab (and background MTX therapy). Eligible consenting patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio using minimisation incorporating a random element. Minimisation factors were centre, disease duration, non-response category and seropositive/seronegative status. SETTING: UK outpatient rheumatology departments. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with RA and were receiving MTX, but had not responded to two or more conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies and had shown an inadequate treatment response to a first TNFi. INTERVENTIONS: Alternative TNFi, abatacept or rituximab (and continued background MTX). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was absolute reduction in the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures over 48 weeks were additional measures of disease activity, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, radiographic measures, safety and toxicity. LIMITATIONS: Owing to third-party contractual issues, commissioning challenges delaying centre set-up and thus slower than expected recruitment, the funders terminated the trial early. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and December 2014, 149 patients in 35 centres were registered, of whom 122 were randomised to treatment (alternative TNFi, n = 41; abatacept, n = 41; rituximab, n = 40). The numbers, as specified, were analysed in each group [in line with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle]. Comparing alternative TNFi with rituximab, the difference in mean reduction in DAS28 at 24 weeks post randomisation was 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 1.05] in the ITT patient population and -0.58 (95% CI -1.72 to 0.55) in the per protocol (PP) population. Corresponding results for the abatacept and rituximab comparison were 0.04 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.79) in the ITT population and -0.15 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.98) in the PP population. General improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life and the patients' general health was apparent over time, with no notable differences between treatment groups. There was a marked initial improvement in the patients' global assessment of pain and arthritis at 12 weeks across all three treatment groups. Switching to alternative TNFi may be cost-effective compared with rituximab [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £5332.02 per quality-adjusted life-year gained]; however, switching to abatacept compared with switching to alternative TNFi is unlikely to be cost-effective (ICER £253,967.96), but there was substantial uncertainty in the decisions. The value of information analysis indicated that further research would be highly valuable to the NHS. Ten serious adverse events in nine patients were reported; none were suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Two patients died and 10 experienced toxicity. FUTURE WORK: The results will add to the randomised evidence base and could be included in future meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: How to manage first-line TNFi treatment failures remains unresolved. Had the trial recruited to target, more credible evidence on whether or not either of the interventions were non-inferior to rituximab may have been provided, although this remains speculative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abatacept Compared with Adalimumab on Background Methotrexate in Biologic-Naive Adult Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Poor Prognosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess cost effectiveness of abatacept versus adalimumab, each administered with methotrexate, in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stratified according to baseline anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) levels (marker of poor prognosis in RA). METHODS: A payer-perspective cost-effectiveness model simulated disease progression in patients with RA who had previously failed conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and were starting biologic therapy. Patients commenced treatment with abatacept or adalimumab plus methotrexate and were evaluated after 6 months. Therapy continuation was based on the European League Against Rheumatism treatment response; disease progression was based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score. These score changes were used to estimate health state utilities and direct medical costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained were calculated by baseline ACPA groups (Q1, 28-234 AU/ml; Q2, 235-609 AU/ml; Q3, 613-1045 AU/ml; and Q4, 1060-4894 AU/ml). Scenario analysis and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate robustness of model assumptions. RESULTS: Abatacept resulted in QALY gain versus adalimumab in ACPA Q1, Q3, and Q4; between-treatment difference (difference: Q1, -0.115 Q2, -0.009 Q3, 0.045; and Q4, 0.279). Total lifetime discounted cost was higher for abatacept versus adalimumab in most quartiles (Q2, £77,612 vs. £77,546; Q3, £74,441 vs. £73,263; and Q4, £78,428 vs. £76,696) because of longer time on treatment. Incremental cost per QALY for abatacept (vs. adalimumab) was the lowest in the high ACPA titer group (Q4, £6200/QALY), followed by the next lowest titer group (Q3, £26,272/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept is a cost effective alternative to adalimumab in patients with RA with high ACPA levels.

Cost-effectiveness of early treatment of ACPA-positive rheumatoid arthritis patients with abatacept.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have reported that the presence of elevated anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)/RF levels, together with joint erosions, is associated with higher disease burden in terms of disability and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Abatacept has been shown to be effective in this patient population with favourable comparative data against adalimumab. However, few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of abatacept in this population to similar treatments such as TNFs. The objective of the study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of abatacept to adalimumab as a first bDMARD in ACPA-positive RA patients who failed treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in Germany. METHODS: A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness, from a payer's perspective, of different treatment sequences in RA over a two year time frame. The effectiveness criteria were defined as achieving the treatment target measured by the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28(CRP)<2.6; "remission"). A treatment switch to a different biologic as 2nd line and 3rd line bDMARD was allowed - in case of not achieving remission with therapy - every 6 months over a two year time period. Effectiveness data was based on randomised controlled trials (RCT) identified by an updated previous systematic literature search by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Costs of medication and other direct medical costs were considered. Cost-effectiveness of RA treatment was investigated in ACPA-positive patients and presented as overall costs per day in remission. RESULTS: For ACPA-positive patients, treatment strategies including early treatment with abatacept had lower total costs per clinical outcome compared to later use. Treatment sequences starting with abatacept resulted in lower costs per day in remission (mean 330 €/day, range 328-333 €/day) compared to sequences starting with adalimumab (mean 384 €/day, range 378-390 €/day). Choice of the second or third biologic in the treatment sequences appears to have little impact on the costs per outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that in ACPA-positive RA patients treatment with abatacept appears to have lower costs per response (remission) compared to treatment with adalimumab as a first bDMARD.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers. METHODS: This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies. RESULTS: There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs. CONCLUSION: MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Comparing biologic persistence and healthcare costs in rheumatoid arthritis patients initiating subcutaneous biologics.

AIM: Comparing biologic persistence and healthcare costs between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating first- or second-line subcutaneous abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept. MATERIALS & METHODS: Retrospective, observational cohort study, which included adults with RA who initiated either of the three treatments between 29 July 2011 and 1 July 2015. Total healthcare costs were measured during baseline and follow-up. Biologic persistence was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Subcutaneous abatacept-treated patients had numerically lowest adjusted hazards of nonpersistence and increase from baseline in total healthcare costs. Sensitivity analyses measuring outcomes over an alternative follow-up definition produced consistent results. CONCLUSION: Abatacept-treated RA patients appeared to have the poorest health status yet often had the lowest increase from baseline in healthcare costs and longest duration of biologic persistence.

Costs of Providing Infusion Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Hospital-based Infusion Center Setting.

PURPOSE: Many hospital-based infusion centers treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with intravenous biologic agents, yet may have a limited understanding of the overall costs of infusion in this setting. The purposes of this study were to conduct a microcosting analysis from a hospital perspective and to develop a model using an activity-based costing approach for estimating costs associated with the provision of hospital-based infusion services (preparation, administration, and follow-up) in the United States for maintenance treatment of moderate to severe RA. METHODS: A spreadsheet-based model was developed. Inputs included hourly wages, time spent providing care, supply/overhead costs, laboratory testing, infusion center size, and practice pattern information. Base-case values were derived from data from surveys, published studies, standard cost sources, and expert opinion. Costs are presented in year-2017 US dollars. The base case modeled a hospital infusion center serving patients with RA treated with abatacept, tocilizumab, infliximab, or rituximab. FINDINGS: Estimated overall costs of infusions per patient per year were $36,663 (rituximab), $36,821 (tocilizumab), $44,973 (infliximab), and $46,532 (abatacept). Of all therapies, the biologic agents represented the greatest share of overall costs, ranging from 87% to $91% of overall costs per year. Excluding infusion drug costs, labor accounted for 53% to 57% of infusion costs. IMPLICATIONS: Biologic agents represented the highest single cost associated with RA infusion care; however, personnel, supplies, and overhead costs also contributed substantially to overall costs (8%-16%). This model may provide a helpful and adaptable framework for use by hospitals in informing decision making about services offered and their associated financial implications.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.

Cost-effectiveness of sequenced treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted immune modulators.

AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase/STAT pathway inhibitors (collectively referred to as bDMARDs) vs conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) from the US societal perspective for treatment of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to cDMARDs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual patient simulation model was developed that assesses the impact of treatments on disease based on clinical trial data and real-world evidence. Treatment strategies included sequences starting with etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, or abatacept. Each of these treatment strategies was compared with cDMARDs. Incremental cost, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment sequence relative to cDMARDs. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was determined using a US willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. RESULTS: For the base-case scenario, bDMARD treatment sequences were associated with greater treatment benefit (i.e. more QALYs), lower lost productivity costs, and greater treatment-related costs than cDMARDs. The expected ICERs for bDMARD sequences ranged from ∼$126,000 to $140,000 per QALY gained, which is below the US-specific WTP. Alternative scenarios examining the effects of homogeneous patients, dose increases, increased costs of hospitalization for severely physically impaired patients, and a lower baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index score resulted in similar ICERs. CONCLUSIONS: bDMARD treatment sequences are cost-effective from a US societal perspective.

Evaluation of Real-World Experience with Tofacitinib Compared with Adalimumab, Etanercept, and Abatacept in RA Patients with 1 Previous Biologic DMARD: Data from a U.S. Administrative Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data comparing tofacitinib with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, treatment patterns, and costs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving tofacitinib versus the most common bDMARDs (adalimumab [ADA], etanercept [ETN], and abatacept [ABA]) following a single bDMARD in a U.S. administrative claims database. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients aged ≥ 18 years with an RA diagnosis (ICD-9-CM codes 714.0x-714.4x; 714.81) and 1 previous bDMARD filling ≥ 1 tofacitinib or bDMARD claim in the Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases (November 1, 2012-October 31, 2014). Monotherapy was defined as absence of conventional synthetic DMARDs within 90 days post-index. Persistence was evaluated using a 60-day gap. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC). RA-related total, pharmacy, and medical costs were evaluated in the 12-month pre- and post-index periods. Treatment patterns and costs were adjusted using linear models including a common set of clinically relevant variables of interest (e.g., previous RA treatments), which were assessed separately using t-tests and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Overall, 392 patients initiated tofacitinib; 178 patients initiated ADA; 118 patients initiated ETN; and 191 patients initiated ABA. Tofacitinib patients were older versus ADA patients (P = 0.0153) and had a lower proportion of Medicare supplemental patients versus ABA patients (P = 0.0095). Twelve-month pre-index bDMARD use was greater in tofacitinib patients (77.6%) versus bDMARD cohorts (47.6%-59.6%). Tofacitinib patients had greater 12-month pre-index RA-related total costs versus bDMARD cohorts (all P < 0.0001) and greatest index use of monotherapy (P = 0.0080 vs. ABA). A similar (all P > 0.10) proportion of patients were persistent with tofacitinib (42.6%) versus ADA (37.6%), ETN (42.4%), and ABA (43.5%). Mean PDC was 0.55 for tofacitinib versus 0.57 (ADA), 0.59 (ETN), and 0.44 (ABA; P = 0.0003). Adjusted analyses generated similar findings to the unadjusted treatment patterns. Tofacitinib had lower adjusted 12-month post-index mean RA-related total costs ($23,568) versus ADA ($29,278; P < 0.0001), ETN ($26,885; P = 0.0248), and ABA ($30,477; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, tofacitinib was more commonly used as monotherapy and yielded at least comparable persistence and adherence with lower adjusted mean RA-related total costs versus ADA, ETN, and ABA. Further analysis is warranted given the greater 12-month pre-index bDMARD use and RA-related costs for tofacitinib versus bDMARDs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Harnett, Gerber, Gruben, Koenig, and Chen are employees and shareholders of Pfizer. Some data reported in this manuscript have been previously presented at the Academy of Managed Care Nexus 2015; Orlando, Florida; October 26-29, 2015, and was submitted in abstract form to the European League Against Rheumatism Congress; London, United Kingdom; June 8-11, 2016. All authors were involved in the conception and design of this study. Harnett and Gruben were involved in data collection and analysis. All authors interpreted the data, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK: High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION: Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis patients in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment is a significant economic burden on the Italian healthcare system. Economic models in RA are commonly based on indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of abatacept relative to adalimumab for RA in Italy based on a head-to-head trial by means of a cost-consequence analysis. RESULTS: Health benefits based on the most stringent efficacy criteria were in favor of abatacept compared to adalimumab. Rates for more costly adverse events were higher for adalimumab compared to abatacept, which was reflected in the lower costs for abatacept (-€237,246 or -€237per patient). CONCLUSION: The health economic value of abatacept compared with adalimumab from the perspective of the Italian NHS depends on the choice of health outcome. Health gains with abatacept were generally based on more stringent criteria and lower total costs.

Cost analysis of biologic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis first line treatment after methotrexate failure according to patients' body weight. / Análisis de costes de la utilización de fármacos biológicos para la artritis reumatoide en primera línea de tratamiento tras respuesta inadecuada a metotrexato en función del peso de los pacientes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the influence of patients' weight in the cost of rheumatoid arthritis treatment with biologic drugs used in first line after non-adequate response to methotrexate. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Pharmaceutical and administration costs were calculated in two scenarios: non-optimization and optimization of intravenous (IV) vials. The retrospective analysis of 66 patients from a Spanish 1,000 beds-hospital Rheumatology Clinic Service was used to obtain posology and weight data. The study time horizon was two years. Costs were expressed in 2013 euros. RESULTS: For an average 69kg-weighted patient the lowest cost corresponded to abatacept subcutaneous (SC ABA) (€21,028.09) in the scenario without IV vials optimization and infliximab (IFX) (€20,779.29) with optimization. Considering patients' weight in the scenario without IV vials optimization infliximab (IFX) was the least expensive drug in patients ranged 45-49kg, IV ABA in 50-59kg and SC ABA in patients over 60kg. With IV vials optimization IFX was the least expensive drug in patients under 69kg and SC ABA over 70kg. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming comparable effectiveness of biological drugs, patient's weight is a variable to consider, potentials savings could reach €20,000 in two years.

Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, rituximab, and TNFi treatment after previous failure with TNFi treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose treatment with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is failing, several biological treatment options are available. Often, another TNFi or a biological with another mode of action is prescribed. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three biologic treatments with different modes of action in patients with RA whose TNFi therapy is failing. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, 1-year randomised trial in a multicentre setting. Patients with active RA despite previous TNFi treatment were randomised to receive abatacept, rituximab or a different TNFi. The primary outcome (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) and the secondary outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and 36-item Short Form Health Survey scores) were analysed using linear mixed models. Cost-effectiveness was analysed on the basis of incremental net monetary benefit, which was based on quality-adjusted life-years (calculated using EQ-5D scores), and all medication expenditures consumed in 1 year. All analyses were also corrected for possible confounders. RESULTS: Of 144 randomised patients, 5 were excluded and 139 started taking abatacept (43 patients), rituximab (46 patients) or a different TNFi (50 patients). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to multiple measures of RA outcomes. However, our analysis revealed that rituximab therapy is significantly more cost-effective than both abatacept and TNFi over a willingness-to-pay range of 0 to 80,000 euros. CONCLUSIONS: All three treatment options were similarly effective; however, when costs were factored into the treatment decision, rituximab was the best option available to patients whose first TNFi treatment failed. However, generalization of these costs to other countries should be undertaken carefully. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register number NTR1605. Registered 24 December 2008.

Cost per patient-year in response using a claims-based algorithm for the 2 years following biologic initiation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate cost per patient-year in response during 2 years following biologic initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Adults newly initiating biologics for RA (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2009 and July 2011 were identified in the MarketScan Commercial Database. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled 6 months before (pre-index) and 24 months after (post-index) their first (index) biologic claim. Biologic effectiveness was assessed using six criteria during 2-year follow-up: treatment adherence ≥80%, no biologic dose escalation, no biologic switch, no new disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no new/increased glucocorticoid dose, and limited intra-articular joint injections (≤2). After a 90-day period of non-response for a treatment failure, effectiveness or failure of subsequent treatment was assessed again for the index biologic or new biologic (after switching). Post-index RA-related medical, pharmacy, and drug administration costs were attributed to the index biologic. Cost per patient-year in response was calculated as RA-related costs divided by duration of response. RESULTS: Overall, 15.0% of patients (1229/8193) did not fail any criterion for 2 years and were effectively treated. Mean duration of response was highest for etanercept (538.3 days), followed by golimumab (537.0 days; p = 0.864), adalimumab (534.7 days; p = 0.301), certolizumab (524.0 days; p = 0.165), infliximab (480.0 days; p < 0.001), and abatacept (482.3 days; p < 0.001). Total disease-related cost per patient-year in response was lower for patients initiated on etanercept ($25,086) than for patients initiated on adalimumab ($25,960), certolizumab ($26,339), golimumab ($26,332), abatacept ($35,581), or infliximab ($36,107). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited to employer-paid commercial insurance. Database analyses cannot determine reasons for failing criteria. The algorithm was not designed and validated for 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: An effectiveness algorithm estimated that initiating etanercept was the most effective treatment during 2 years of follow-up, with the lowest cost per patient-year in response.

[Cost-minimization analysis of subcutaneous abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain]. / Análisis de minimización de costes de abatacept subcutáneo en el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide en España.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of treating rheumatoid arthritis patients that have failed an initial treatment with methotrexate, with subcutaneous abatacept versus other first-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHOD: Subcutaneous abatacept was considered comparable to intravenous abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab and tocilizumab, based on indirect comparison using mixed treatment analysis. A cost-minimization analysis was therefore considered appropriate. The Spanish Health System perspective and a 3 year time horizon were selected. Pharmaceutical and administration costs (Euros 2013) of all available first-line biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were considered. Administration costs were obtained from a local costs database. Patients were considered to have a weight of 70 kg. A 3% annual discount rate was applied. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Subcutaneous abatacept proved in the base case to be less costly than all other biologic antirrheumatic drugs (ranging from Euros -831.42 to Euros -9,741.69 versus infliximab and tocilizumab, respectively). Subcutaneous abatacept was associated with a cost of Euros 10,760.41 per patient during the first year of treatment and Euros 10,261.29 in subsequent years. The total 3-year cost of subcutaneous abatacept was Euros 29,953.89 per patient. Sensitivity analyses proved the model to be robust. Subcutaneous abatacept remained cost-saving in 100% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations versus adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept and golimumab, in more than 99.6% versus intravenous abatacept and tocilizumab and in 62.3% versus infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with subcutaneous abatacept is cost-saving versus intravenous abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab and tocilizumab in the management of rheumatoid arthritis patients initiating treatment with biological antirheumatic drugs.

OBJETIVO: Comparar, desde la perspectiva del Sistema Sanitario, el coste del tratamiento con abatacept subcutáneo en pacientes con artritis reumatoide tras fracaso a metotrexato, frente al resto de fármacos antirreumáticos modificadores de la enfermedad disponibles en España con indicación en primera línea de terapia biológica. MÉTODOS: Una comparación indirecta demostró eficacia y seguridad de abatacept subcutáneo comparables a abatacept intravenoso, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab y tocilizumab, por lo que se optó por una minimización de costes. El análisis incluyó costes farmacológicos y de administración (, 2013) para un paciente "tipo" de 70 kg y un horizonte temporal de tres años. Se aplicó una tasa anual de descuento del 3%. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad determinísticos y probabilísticos. RESULTADOS: Abatacept subcutáneo tuvo un coste anual de 10.760,41 durante el primer año, 10.261,29 en los años siguientes, y un coste total de 29.953,89 a los tres años, generando ahorros (rango -831,41 versus infliximab a -9.741,69 versus tocilizumab) frente a los demás antirreumáticos modificadores de la enfermedad. Las mayores diferencias entre fármacos se observaron durante el primer año de tratamiento. Abatacept subcutáneo se asoció a ahorros en el 100% de las simulaciones del análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico versus adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept y golimumab, en más del 99,6% versus abatacept intravenoso y tocilizumab y en el 62,3% versus infliximab. CONCLUSIONES: En base a los resultados, el tratamiento con abatacept subcutáneo genera ahorros frente a abatacept intravenoso, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab y tocilizumab en pacientes con artritis reumatoide que inician tratamiento con fármacos antirreumáticos biológicos.