Clinical Rheumatology

, 28:403 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness modeling of abatacept versus other biologic agents in DMARDS and anti-TNF inadequate responders for the management of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis

  • Anthony Russell
  • Ariel Beresniak
  • Louis Bessette
  • Boulos Haraoui
  • Proton Rahman
  • Carter Thorne
  • Ross Maclean
  • Danielle Dupont
Original Article

Abstract

To assess the cost-effectiveness of abatacept compared to different biologic treatment strategies for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis based on current medical practices in Canada. A model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various biologic treatments over a 2-year time horizon, using two effectiveness endpoints: “low disease activity state” (LDAS) and “remission”. Abatacept, as first biologic agent after an inadequate response to DMARDs, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (29.4% versus 15.6%) and remission (14.8% versus 5.2%), and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p < 0.001). Abatacept, as second biologic agent after an inadequate response to one anti-TNF agent, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (17.1% versus 10.2%) and remission (7.4% versus 3.9%) and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p < 0.001). Abatacept is a cost-effective strategy in patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs or to one anti-TNF agent.

Keywords

Abatacept Anti-TNF therapy Cost-effectiveness Modeling Rheumatoid Arthritis 

References

  1. 1.
    Pisetsky D, St Clair E (2001) Progress in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA 286:2787–2790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weinblatt M, Kremer J, Bankhurst A, Bulpitt K, Fleischmann R, Fox R, Jackson C, Lange M, Burge D (1999) A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor: Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. N Engl J Med 340:253–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weinblatt M, Keystone E, Furst D, Moreland L, Weisman M, Birbara C, Teoh L, Fischkoff S, Chartash E (2003) Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients taking concomitant methotrexate: the ARMADA trial. Arthritis Rheum 48:35–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipsky P, van der Heijde D, St Clair E, Furst D, Breedveld F, Kalden J, Smolen J, Weisman M, Emery P, Feldmann M, Harriman G, Maini R, Group A-TNFTiRAwCTS (2000) Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group. N Engl J Med 343:1594–1602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Redlich K, Schett G, Steiner G, Hayer S, Wagner EJSS (2003) Rheumatoid arthritis therapy after tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-1 blockade. Arthritis Rheum 48:3308–3319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klinkhoff A (2004) Biological agents for rheumatoid arthritis: targeting both physical function and structural damage. Drugs 64:1267–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smolen J, Steiner G (2003) Therapeutic strategies for rheumatoid arthritis. Nature Reviews 2Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hyrich K, Lunt M, Watson K, Symmons D, Silman A (2007) Outcomes after switching from one anti-tumor necrosis factor agent to a second anti-tumor necrosis factor agent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 56:13–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flendrie M, Creemers M, Welsing PMJ, den Broeder AA, van Riel PLCM (2003) Survival during treatment with tumour necrosis factor blocking agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 62:30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pugner KM, Scott DI, Holmes JW, Hieke K (2000) The costs of rheumatoid arthritis: an international long-term view. Semin Arthritis Rheum 29:305–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genovese M, Becker J, Schiff M, Luggen M, Sherrer Y, Kremer J, Birbara C, Box J, Natarajan K, Nuamah I, Li T, Aranda R, Hagerty D, Dougados M (2005) Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition. N Engl J Med 353:1114–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kremer J, Genant H, Moreland L, Russel A et al (2006) Effects of abatacept in patients with methotrexate-resistant active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 144:865–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stahl J (2008) Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment, an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26:131–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Makinen H, Kautiainen H, Hannonen P, Tuulikki S (2005) Frequency of remissions in early rheumatoid arthritis defined by 3 sets of criteria. A 5-year followup study. J Rheumatol 32:796–800PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American College of Rheumatology (2002) Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 46:328–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fransen J, Van Riel PLCM (2005) The disease activity score and the EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23:S93–S99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Welsing PMJ, van Gestel AM, Swinkels HL, Keimeney LALM, Van Riel PLCM (2001) The relationship between disease activity, joint destruction and functional capacity over the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 44:2009–2017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Welsing PMJ, Severens JL, Hartman M, van Gestel AM, van Riel PLCM, Laan RFJM (2006) The initial validation of a Markov model for the economic evaluation of (new) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1011–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Rodriguez-Valverde V, Codreanu C, Bolosiu H, Melo-Gomes J, Tornero-Molina J, Wajdula J, Pedersen R, Fatenejad S, Investigators ftTS (2006) Comparison of etanercept and methotrexate, alone and combined, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis two-year clinical and radiographic results from the TEMPO study, a double-blind, randomized trial. Arthritis Rheum 54:1063–1074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kremer J, Dougados M, Emery P, Durez P, Sibilia J, Shergy W, Steinfeld S, Tindall E, Becker J, Li T, Nuamah I, Aranda R, Moreland L (2005) Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with the selective costimulation modulator abatacept—12 month results of a phase II double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 52:2263–2271 AugPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Genovese M, Schiff M, Luggen M, Becker J, Aranda R, Teng J, Li T, Schmidely N, Le Bars M, Dougados M (2007) Efficacy and safety of the selective co-stimulation modulator abatacept following 2 years of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapy. Ann Rheum Dis (online) Oct 5:doi:10.1136/ard.2007.074773
  22. 22.
    Hervey P, Keam S (2006) Abatacept. Biodrugs 20:53–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weinblatt M, Combe B, Covucci A, Aranda R, Becker J, Keystone E (2006) Safety of the selective costimulation modulator abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving background biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. A one year randomized placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 54:2807–2816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haraoui B, Cameron L, L’Archevêque J, Ouellet M, Choquette D, Raynauld J (2007) Clinical response to a second or third anti-TNF agent after discontinuation of the first. Implications for therapeutic decision-making. 4th Canadian Association for Population Therapeutics (CAPT) Congress HalifaxGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Navaro F, Marsal S, Gomez-Reino J, Perez-Pampon E (2006) EULAR response and drug survival in clinical practice in RA patients treated with anti-TNF therapy: results of an observational, prospective, cohort study in Spain. Ann Rheum Dis 65:333Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Vollenhoven R, Cullinane Carli C, Bratt J, Klareskog L (2006) Six-year report of the STURE registry for biologicals in rheumatology: satisfactory overall results, but plenty of room for improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 65:511Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gomez-Reino J, Carmona L, Group tB (2006) Switching TNF antagonists in patients with chronic arthritis: an observational study of 488 patients over a four-year period. Arthritis Research & Therapy 8:(doi:10.1186/ar1881); http://arthritis-research.com/content/1188/1181/R1129
  28. 28.
    Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute (1995) Physical Activity Monitor. http://wwwdflrica/cflri/pa/surveys/95survey/95surveyhtml
  29. 29.
    Katchamart W, Li X, Bombardier C (2006) Direct and indirect costs of rheumatoid arthritis are strongly correlated with disease activity and functional status. ACR/ARHP 625Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maetzel A, Li LC, Pencharz J, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C (2004) The economic burden associated with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension: a comparative study. Ann Rheum Dis 63:395–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Welsing PMJ, Severens JL, Harman M, van Riel PLCM, Laan RFJM (2004) Modeling the 5-year cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies including tumor necrosis factor-blocking agents and leflunomide for treating rheumatoid arthritis in the Netherlands. Arthritis Rheum (Athritis Care & Research) 51:964–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Emery P (2004) Review of health economics modelling in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 22:55–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bansback N, Regier D, Ara R, Brennan A, Shojania K, Esdaile J, Anis Aslam H, Marra Carlo A (2005) An overview of economic evaluations for drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis: focus on tumour necrosis factor-alpha antagonists. Drugs 65:473–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maetzel A, Tugwell P, Boers M, Guillemin F, Coyle D, Drummond M, Wong J, Gabriel S, Group obotOER (2003) Economic evaluation of programs or interventions in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: defining a reference case. J Rheumatol 30:891–896PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wells G, Boers M, Shea B, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand C, Aletaha D, Anderson J, Bombardier C, Dougados M, Emery P, Felson D, Fransen J, Furst D, Hazes J, Johnson K, Kirwan J, Landewé R, Lassere M, Michaud K, Suarez-Almazor M, Silman A, Smolen J, Van der Heijde D, van Riel P, Wolfe F, Tugwell P (2005) Minimal disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary definition. J Rheumatol 32:2016–2024PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lyseng-Williamson KA, Plosker GL (2004) Etanercept: a pharmacoeconmic review of its use in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 22:1071–1095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Doan QV, Chiou CG, Dubois RW (2006) Review of eight pharmacoeconomic studies of the value of biologic DMARDS (adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. J Manag Care Pharm 12:555–569PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brennan A, Bansback N, Nixon R, Madan J, Harrison M, Watson K, Symmons D (2007) Modelling the cost-effectiveness of TNF-alpha antagonists in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry. Rheumatology 46:1345–1354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suarez-Almazor M, Conner-Spady B (2001) Rating of arthritis health states by patients, physicians, and the general public. Implications for cost-utility analyses. J Rheumatol 28:648–656PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Duru G, Auray JP, Beresniak A, Lamure M, Paine A, Nicoloyannis N (2002) Limitations of the methods used for calculating quality-adjusted life-year values. Pharmacoeconomics 20:463–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mc Gregor M, Caro J (2006) QALYs: Are they helpful to decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics 24:947–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jorstad I, Kirstiansen I, Uhlig T et al (2005) Performance of four utility measures in 1041 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA): well correlated but differing widely in valuing health states. Arthritis Rheum 52:S660Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ariza-Ariza R, Hernández-Cruz B, Carmona L, Ruiz-Montecinos MD, Ballina J, Navarro-Sarabia F, Group CaQoLiRAS (2006) Assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison between time trade-off and the EuroQol. Arthritis Rheum (Arthritis Care Res) 55:751–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Beresniak A, Russell A, Haraoui B, Bessette L, Bombardier C, Duru G (2007) Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 34:2193–2200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ariza-Ariza R, Navarro-Sarabia F, Hernández-Cruz B, Rodríguez-Arboleya L, Navarro-Compán V, Toyos J (2007) Dose escalation of the anti-TNF-α agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review. Rheumatology 46:529–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Haraoui B, Cameron L, Ouellet M, White B (2006) Anti-infliximab antibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who require higher doses of infliximab to achieve or maintain a clinical response. J Rheumatol 33:31–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wolbink G, Vis M, Lems W, Voskuyl A, de Groot E, Nurmohamed M, Stapel S, Tak P, Aarden L, Dijkmans B (2006) Development of antiinfliximab antibodies and relationship to clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 54:711–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Berger A, Edelsberg J, Li T, Maclean J, Oster G (2005) Dose intensification with infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Pharmacother 39:2021–2025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stern R, Wolfe F (2004) Infliximab dose and clinical status: results of 2 studies in 1642 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 31:1538–1545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fitzcharles M, Clayton D, Menard H (2002) The use of infliximab in academic rheumatology practice: an audit of early clinical experience. J Rheumatol 29:2525–2530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Agarwal S, Maier A, Chibnik L, Coblyn J, Fossel A, Lee R, Fanikos J, Fiumara K, Lowry C, Weinblatt M (2005) Pattern of infliximab utilization in rheumatoid arthritis patients at an academic medical center. Arthritis Rheum (Arthritis Care Res) 53:872–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Russell
    • 1
  • Ariel Beresniak
    • 2
    • 3
  • Louis Bessette
    • 4
  • Boulos Haraoui
    • 5
  • Proton Rahman
    • 6
  • Carter Thorne
    • 7
  • Ross Maclean
    • 8
  • Danielle Dupont
    • 9
  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.LIRAESParis-Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  3. 3.Data Mining InternationalGenevaSwitzerland
  4. 4.Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec-CHULQuébecCanada
  5. 5.University of MontrealMontrealCanada
  6. 6.St. Clare’s Mercy HospitalSt. John’sCanada
  7. 7.Southlake Regional Health CenterUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Outcomes ResearchBristol-Myers SquibbPrincetonUSA
  9. 9.Bristol-Myers Squibb International CorporationBraine L’AlleudBelgium

Personalised recommendations