The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 8, Supplement 2, pp 95–106

The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: outcome and cost-utility of treatments

Original paper

Abstract

Within the series of articles investigating the burden of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), this paper reviews the methods used for economic assessment of the RA treatments by HTA agencies and other bodies involved in cost-effectiveness analysis and the current status of the field. The overall methods, as well as the challenges, of cost-effectiveness analysis in RA are common to all chronic progressive diseases where much of the treatment benefit is delayed, while costs occur immediately. Also, as in all disabling diseases, much of the costs occur outside the health-care system, due to the rapid loss of work capacity and the need for informal care in the later stages of the disease. Thus, it is essential to adopt a long-term view and consider costs from the perspective of society, rather than the health-care service, to increase the relevance of the results for policy making.

Keywords

Rheumatoid arthritis Cost-effectiveness Modeling 

JEL Classification

I11 

References

  1. 1.
    Scott, D., Pugner, K., Kaarela, K., et al.: The links between joint damage and disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 39, 122–132 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pincus, T., Sokka, T., Wolfe, F.: Premature mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: evolving concepts. Arthritis Rheum. 44, 1234–1236 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riise, T., Jacobsen, B., Gran, J., et al.: Total mortalilty is increased in rheumatoid arthritis. A 17 year prospective study. Clin. Rheumatol. 20, 123–127 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yelin, E., Turpin, L., Wong, B., Rush, S.: The impact of functional status and change in functional status on mortality over 18 years among persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 29, 1851–1857 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chehata, J., Hassell, A., Clarke, S., et al.: Mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: relationship to single and composite measures of disease activity. Rheumatology 40, 447–452 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jönsson B.: Quality of life and health economics. Where is the link? Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 31(Suppl 221), 33–36 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, H.K., Seeger, J.D., Kuntz, K.M.: A cost effectiveness analysis of treatment options for methotrexate-naive rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 29, 1156–1165 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maetzel, A., Tugwell, P., Boers, M., group obotOER.: Economic evaluation of programs or interventions in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: defining a reference case. J. Rheumatol. 30, 891–896 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware, J., Sherbourne, C., McHorney, C.: The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Med. Care 31, 247–263 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeJong, Z., van der Heijde, D., McKenna, S., Whalley, D.: The reliability and construct validity of the RAQoL: a rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. Br. J. Rheumatol. 36, 878–883 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torrance, G.: Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. A review. J. Health Econ. 5, 1–30 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drummond, M., O'Brien, B., Stoddart, G., Torrance, G.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care. Kluwer, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobelt, G.: Health economics: introduction to economic evaluation. Office of Health Economics, London (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EuroQol: Group EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16, 199–208 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York. Report No.: Discussion paper 138 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torrance, G.: Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. A review. J. Health Econ. 5, 1–30 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolfe, F., Mitchell, D., Sibley, J. et al.: The mortality of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 37, 481–494 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Symmons, D., Jones, M., Scott, D., Prior P.: Long-term mortality outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthrits: early presenters continue to do well. J. Rheumatol. 25, 1072–1077 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wallberg-Jonsson, S., Ohlman, M., Dahlqvist S.: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with seroposivie rheumatoid arthritis in Northern Sweden. J. Rheumatol. 24, 445–451 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobsson, L.T., Turesson, C., Gulfe, A., et al.: Treatment with tumor necrosis factor blockers is associated with a lower incidence of first cardiovascular events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 32, 1213–1218 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobsson, L.T., Turesson, C., Nilsson, J.A., et al.: Treatment with TNF blockers and mortality risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 66, 670–675 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kobelt, G.: Health economic issues in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand. J. Rheumatol. 35, 415–425 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kobelt, G., Eberhardt, K., Jönsson, L., Jönsson, B.: Economic consequences of the progression of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum. 42, 347–356 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kobelt, G., Jönsson, L., Lindgren, P., et al.: Modelling the Progression of rheumatoid arthritis. A two-country model to estimate costs and consequences of RA. Arthritis Rheum. 46, 2310–2319 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guillemin, F., Briancon, S., Pourel, J.: Functional disability in rheumatoid arthritis: two different models in early and established disease. J. Rheumatol. 26, 800–804 (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aletaha, D., Smolen, J., Ward, M.M.: Measuring function in rheumatoid arthritis: Identifying reversible and irreversible components. Arthritis Rheum. 54, 2784–2792 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fries, J., Spitz, P., Kraines, R., Holman, H.: Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 23, 137–145 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kobelt, G., Lindgren, P., Lindroth, Y., et al.: Modelling the effect of function and disease activity on costs and quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44, 1169–1175 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hulsemann, J.L., Ruof, J., Zeidler, H., Mittendorf, T.: Costs in rheumatology: results and lessons learned from the 'Hannover Costing Study'. Rheumatol. Int. 26, 704–711 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lajas, C., Abasolo, L., Bellajdel, B., et al.: Costs and predictors of costs in rheumatoid arthritis: a prevalence-based study. Arthritis Rheum. 49, 64–70 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kobelt, G., Richard, B., Peeters, P., Sany, J.: Costs and quality of life of patients with RA in France. ACR abstract, Bone, Joint, Spine (in press) (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marra, C.A., Woolcott, J.C., Kopec, J.A., et al.: 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, 1571–1582 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marra C.A., Marion S.A., Guh D.P., et al.: Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60, 616–624 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thompson, M., Leighton-Read, J., Hutchings, C., et al.: The cost effectiveness of auranofin. Results of a randomized clinical trial. J. Rheumatol. 15, 35–42 (1988)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Drummond, M.F., Barbieri, M., Wong, J.B.: Analytic choices in economic models of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: What makes a difference? Med. Decis. Making 25, 520–533 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bansback, N.J., Regier, D.A., Ara, R., et al.: An overview of economic evaluations for drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis: focus on tumour necrosis factor-alpha antagonists. Drugs 65, 473–496 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smolen, K., Kalden, J., Scott, D., et al.: Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomized multicentre trial. Lancet 353, 259–266 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Emery, P., Breedveld, F., Lemmel, E., et al.: A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 39, 655–665 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Strand, V., Tugwell, P., Bombardier, C., et al.: Results from a randomized controlled trial of leflunomide versus methotrexate or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 42, 1870–1878 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kobelt, G., Lindgren, P., Young, A., Eberhardt, K.: Cost and effects of leflunomide in the UK. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3, 173–179 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maini, R., Group tAS.: Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial. Lancet 354, 1932–1939 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kobelt, G., Jönsson, L., Young, A., Eberhardt, K.: The cost-effectiveness of infliximab (Remicade(R)) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden and the United Kingdom based on the ATTRACT study. Rheumatology 42, 326–335 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weinblatt, M., Kremer, J., Bankhurst, A., et al.: 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, 253–312 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jobanputra, P., Barton, P., Bryan, S., et al.: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new drug treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: etanercept and infliximab. University of Birmingham, Birmingham (2004)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barton, P., Jobanputra, P., Wilson, J., et al.: The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with chronic conditions: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Technol. Assess. 8, 1–91 (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kobelt, G., Eberhardt, K., Geborek, P.: TNF-inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: costs and outcomes in a follow-up study of patients with RA treated with etanercept or infliximab in southern Sweden. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 63, 4–10 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wong, J., Singh, G., Kavanough, A.: Estimating the cost-effectiveness of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Am. J. Med. 113, 400–408 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moreland, L., Schiff, M., Baumgartner, S., et al.: Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann. Intern. Med. 130, 478–486 (1999)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brennan, A., Bansback, N., Nixon, R., et al.: Modelling the cost effectiveness of TNF-{alpha} antagonists in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry. Rheumatology (Oxford) (2007)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bansback, N.J., Brennan, A., Ghatnekar, O.: Cost effectiveness of adalimumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 64, 995–1002 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Klareskog, L., van der Heijde, D., de Jager, J.P., et al.: 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, 675–681 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kobelt, G., Lindgren, P., Singh, A., Klareskog, L.: 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, 1174–1179 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wolfe, F., Michaud, K., Pincus, T.: Do rheumatology cost-effectiveness analyses make sense?. Rheumatology 43, 4–6 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Brennan, A., Bansback, N., Reynolds, A., Conway, P.: Modeling the cost-effectiveness of etanercept in adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Rheumatology 43, 62–72 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zink, A., Strangfeld, A., Schneider, M., et al.: Effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis in an observational cohort study: comparison of patients according to their eligibility for major randomized clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 54, 3399–3407 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wong, J., Ramey, D., Singh, G.: Long-term morbidity, mortality and economics of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 44, 2746–2749 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kobelt, G., Jönsson, L., Lindqvist, E., Eberhardt, K.: Cost-effectiveness of infliximab in Sweden. ACR San Francisco. Arthritis Rheum. (Abstract 2282) (2001)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Barbieri, M., Wong, J.B., Drummond, M.: The cost effectiveness of infliximab for severe treatment-resistant rheumatoid arthritis in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 607–618 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Smolen, J., Breedveld, T., Burmester, G., et al.: Consensus statement on the initiation and continuation of tumour necrosis factor blocking therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 59, 504–505 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsUniversity of LundLundSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations