Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 30, Supplement 1, pp 9–18 | Cite as

Introduction to economic modeling for clinical rheumatologists: application to biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis

  • Carlo A. Marra
  • Nick Bansback
  • Aslam H. Anis
  • Kamran Shojania


Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating inflammatory, progressive musculoskeletal disease that affects 0.5–1.0% of the adult population in Western countries. The joint destruction and progressive functional disability associated with uncontrolled RA result in tremendous impacts on health-related quality of life, ability to work, and mortality. In addition, the treatment of the disease and associated complications exact a substantial economic burden to the patients, their families, and society. In the last decade, several biological agents (biologics) have been approved for use in RA, revolutionizing treatment. These biologics, which target cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor or lymphocytes such as B or T cells, reduce functional disability and substantially slow the progression of joint damage. However, because these agents typically cost ten to 100 times more than existing available older drug therapies, there has been worldwide concern regarding their impact on healthcare budgets. As such, there has been increased attention towards economic evaluation as a means to determine whether, and in which subgroup of patients, these newer, more expensive agents confer appropriate value for their additional cost. Indeed, evaluations have guided coverage decisions for both private and public health insurance agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK. The use of economic evaluations to determine value for money for these agents has attracted both debate and controversy. Some of the controversy is related to the appropriateness of the structure of, and assumptions underlying, the decision models employed to estimate the long-term costs and benefits of these agents over existing therapies. To fully appreciate the debate, one must first understand the basic principles of economic evaluation and the necessity for using decision models to evaluate cost effectiveness. To understand the basic principles of economic evaluation, we refer the reader to an introductory article aimed at clinical rheumatologists. This paper attempts to explain the rationale for the use of economic modeling approaches to assess the value of biologics for RA using specific examples from the literature.


Economic evaluation Modeling Rheumatoid arthritis 



Carlo Marra is a Government of Canada Research Chair in Pharmaceutical Outcomes and a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar.

Conflict of interests

The content of this article is the sole responsibility of the authors. Medical writing assistance for the preparation of this article was provided by Synergy who received financial support from Pfizer. C. Marra has received honoraria from Pfizer for consulting. N. Bansback has no financial relationship with Pfizer or any other pharmaceutical company. A. Anis has received honoraria from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Schering for consulting, and has received research support from Abbott and Pfizer. K. Shojania has received honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Roche for speaking and consulting, and has received research grants from Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Roche. K. Shojania has no financial relationship with Pfizer.


  1. 1.
    Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA et al (1997) Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 6:217–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Drummond M, McCabe C (2006) Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision-making? Health Econ 15:677–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S (2004) Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 9:110–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Economic evaluation using decision analytic modelling, chapter 9. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K (2006) Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan MC, Regier DA, Esdaile JM, Lynd LD, Anis AH, Marra CA (2006) Health economic evaluation: a primer for the practicing rheumatologist. Arthritis Rheum 55:648–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Singh A, Klareskog L (2005) Cost effectiveness of etanercept (Enbrel) in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis based on the TEMPO trial. Ann Rheum Dis 64:1174–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Young A, Eberhardt K (2003) The cost-effectiveness of infliximab (Remicade) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden and the United Kingdom based on the ATTRACT study. Rheumatology 42:326–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brennan A, Bansback N, Reynolds A, Conway P (2004) Modelling the cost-effectiveness of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Rheumatology 43:62–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bansback NJ, Brennan A, Ghatnekar O (2005) Cost effectiveness of adalimumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 64:995–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wailoo AJ, Bansback N, Brennan A, Michaud K, Nixon RM, Wolfe F (2008) Biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in the Medicare program: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Arthritis Rheum 58:939–946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brennan A, Bansback NJ, Nixon RM, Madan J, Harrison MJ, Watson K et al (2007) Modeling 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
  13. 13.
    Clark W, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Burls A (2004) The clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 8:iii–iv, ix–x, 1–105Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Burls A (2002) The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 6:1–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W et al (2006) A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess 10:iii–iv, xi–xiii, 1–229Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welsing PM, Severens JL, Hartman M, van Riel PL, Laan RF (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 51:964–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choi HK, Seeger JD, Kuntz KM (2002) A cost effectiveness analysis of treatment options for methotrexate-naive rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 29:1156–1165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi HK, Seeger JD, Kuntz KM (2000) A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 43:2316–2327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barbieri M, Wong JB, Drummond M (2005) The cost effectiveness of infliximab for severe treatment-resistant rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 23:607–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong JB, Singh G, Kavanaugh A (2002) Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 54 weeks of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med 113:400–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chiou CF, Choi J, Reyes C (2004) Cost-effectiveness of biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 4:307–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tanno M, Nakamura I, Ito K, Tanaka H, Ohta H, Kobayashi M et al (2006) Modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in Japan: a preliminary analysis. Mod Rheumatol 16:77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coyle D, Judd M, Blumenauer B, Cranney A, Maetzel A, Tugwell P et al (2006) Infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Technology report no. 64. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), OttawaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, Najafzadeh M, Wolfe F et al (2007) Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 60:616–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spalding JR, Hay J (2006) Cost effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors as first-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1221–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vera-Llonch M, Massarotti E, Wolfe F, Shadick N, Westhovens R et al (2008) Cost-effectiveness of abatacept in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate. Rheumatology 47:535–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindgren P, Geborek P, Kobelt G (2009) Modeling the cost-effectiveness of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with rituximab using registry data from Southern Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25:181–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vera-Llonch M, Massarotti E, Wolfe F, Shadick N, Westhovens R, Sofrygin O, Maclean R, Li T, Oster G (2008) Cost-effectiveness of abatacept in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists. J Rheumatol 35:1745–1753PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kielhorn A, Porter D, Diamantopoulos A, Lewis G (2008) UK cost-utility analysis of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis that failed to respond adequately to a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Curr Med Res Opin 24:2639–2650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Russell A, Beresniak A, Bessette L, Haraoui B, Rahman P et al (2009) 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. Clin Rheumatol 28:403–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bansback N, Ara R, Karnon J, Anis A (2008) Economic evaluations in rheumatoid arthritis: a critical review of measures used to define health states. Pharmacoeconomics 26:395–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R et al (2005) A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 60:1571–1582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bansback NJ, Marra CA, Tsuchiya A et al (2007) Using the Health Assessment Questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 57:2963–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jacobsson LT, Lindroth Y, Marsal L, Juran E, Bergström U, Kobelt G (2007) Rheumatoid arthritis: what does it cost and what factors are driving those costs? Results of a survey in a community-derived population in Malmö, Sweden. Scand J Rheumatol 36:179–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kessler RC, Maclean JR, Petukhova M, Sarawate CA, Short L, Li TT, Stang PE (2008) The effects of rheumatoid arthritis on labor force participation, work performance, and healthcare costs in two workplace samples. J Occup Environ Med 50:88–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Farragher TM, Lunt M, Bunn DK, Silman AJ, Symmons DP (2007) Early functional disability predicts both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in people with inflammatory polyarthritis: results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register. Ann Rheum Dis 66:486–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T (2004) Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 50:3296–3305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wolfe F (2002) The psychometrics of functional status questionnaires: room for improvement. J Rheumatol 29:865–868PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scott DL, Khoshaba B, Choy EH, Kingsley GH (2007) Limited correlation between the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and EuroQol in rheumatoid arthritis: questionable validity of deriving quality adjusted life years from HAQ. Ann Rheum Dis 66:1534–1537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kvien TK (2004) Epidemiology and burden of illness of rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 22(2 Suppl 1):1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li X, Gignac MA, Anis AH (2006) The indirect costs of arthritis resulting from unemployment, reduced performance, and occupational changes while at work. Med Care 44:304–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K, Gefeller O et al (2003) Predicting mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 48:1530–1542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yelin E, Callahan LF (1995) The economic cost and social and psychological impact of musculoskeletal conditions. National Arthritis Work Groups. Arthritis Rheum 38:1351–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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
  45. 45.
    Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Bankhurst AD, Bulpitt KJ, Fleischmann RM, Fox RI et al (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
  46. 46.
    Maini R, St Clair EW, Breedveld F, Furst D, Kalden J, Weisman M et al (1999) Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial. ATTRACT Study Group. Lancet 354:1932–1939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lipsky PE, van der Heijde DM, St Clair EW, Furst DE, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group et al (2000) Infliximab and methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 343:1594–1602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Genovese MC, Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, Tesser JR, Schiff MH et al (2002) Etanercept versus methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes. Arthritis Rheum 46:1443–1450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    van de Putte LB, Rau R, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Malaise MG, van Riel PL et al (2003) Efficacy and safety of the fully human anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody adalimumab (D2E7) in DMARD refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12 week, phase II study. Ann Rheum Dis 62:1168–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Weinblatt ME, Keystone EC, Furst DE, Moreland LW, Weisman MH, Birbara CA et al (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
  51. 51.
    Maini RN, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR, Smolen JS, Furst D, Weisman MH, Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy Study Group et al (2004) Sustained improvement over two years in physical function, structural damage, and signs and symptoms among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab and methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum 50:1051–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Klareskog L, van der Heijde D, de Jager JP, Gough A, Kalden J, Malaise M, TEMPO (Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes) study investigators et al (2004) Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 363:675–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Keystone E, Kavanaugh A, Sharp J, Tennenbaum H, Hua Y, Teoh L et al (2004) Radiographic, clinical, and functional outcomes with adalimumab (a human anti-TNF alpha monoclonal antibody) in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis on concomitant methotrexate therapy: a randomized, controlled, 52 week-trial. Arthritis Rheum 50:1400–1411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lopez-Olivo M, Amezaga M, McGahan L, Suarez-Almazor M (2008) Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(4):CD007356Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Polinksi JM, Mohr PE, Johnson L (2009) Impact of Medicare Part D on access to and cost sharing for specialty biologic medications for beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 61:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Solomon DH, Kavanaugh A (2008) The economics of rheumatoid arthritis management. Int J Adv Rheumatol 6:2–5Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sorensen J, Andersen LS (2005) The case of tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 23:289–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2007) Adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. NICE technology appraisal guidance 130. Available at: Accessed August 2010
  59. 59.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T (2004) Do rheumatology cost-effectiveness analyses make sense? Rheumatology 43:4–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Maetzel A (2005) Cost-effectiveness analysis: out of touch with clinical reality? Arthritis Rheum (Arthritis Care Res) 53:3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Emery P (2004) Review of health economics modeling in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 22(Suppl 1):55–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bansback NJ, Regier DA, Ara R, Brennan A, Shojania K et al (2005) An overview of economic evaluations for drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis: focus on tumour necrosis factor-alpha antagonists. Drugs 65:473–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo A. Marra
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nick Bansback
    • 3
  • Aslam H. Anis
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kamran Shojania
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Arthritis Research CentreVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome SciencesSt. Paul’s HospitalVancouverCanada
  4. 4.School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Division of Rheumatology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations