Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 1015–1028 | Cite as

Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

  • An Tran-DuyEmail author
  • Annelies Boonen
  • Wietske Kievit
  • Piet L. C. M. van Riel
  • Mart A. F. J. van de Laar
  • Johan L. Severens
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterised by a sequence of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological response modifiers (BRMs). In most of the Western countries, the drug sequences are determined based on disease activity and treatment history of the patients. A model for realistic patient outcomes should reflect the treatment pathways relevant for patients with specific characteristics.

Objective

This study aimed at developing a model that could simulate long-term patient outcomes and cost effectiveness of treatment strategies with and without inclusion of BRMs following a clinical guideline for treatment decisions.

Methods

Discrete event simulation taking into account patient characteristics and treatment history was used for model development. Treatment effect on disease activity, costs, health utilities and times to events were estimated using Dutch observational studies. Long-term progression of physical functioning was quantified using a linear mixed-effects model. Costs and health utilities were estimated using two-part models. The treatment strategy recommended by the Dutch Society for Rheumatology where both DMARDs and BRMs were available (Strategy 2) was compared with the treatment strategy without BRMs (Strategy 1). Ten thousand theoretical patients were tracked individually until death. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo simulations were performed with 1,000 sets of parameters sampled from appropriate probability distributions.

Results

The simulated changes over time in disease activity and physical functioning were plausible. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained of Strategy 2 compared with Strategy 1 was €124,011. At a willingness-to-pay threshold higher than €119,167, Strategy 2 dominated Strategy 1 in terms of cost effectiveness but the probability that the Strategy 2 is cost effective never exceeded 0.87.

Conclusions

It is possible to model the outcomes of complex treatment strategies based on a clinical guideline for the management of RA. Following the Dutch guideline and using real-life data, inclusion of BRMs in the treatment strategy for RA appeared to be less favourable in our model than in most of the existing models that compared drug sequences independent of patient characteristics and used data from randomised controlled clinical trials. Despite complexity and demand for extensive data, our modelling approach can help to identify the knowledge gaps in clinical guidelines for RA management and priorities for future research.

Keywords

Rheumatoid Arthritis Leflunomide Tocilizumab Abatacept Health Utility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Financial disclosure/conflict of interest

ATD, WK and PLCMvR declared no conflicts of interest. AB received research grants from Merck, AbbVie and Amgen, and honorarium from Pfizer and VCB. MAFJvdL received honorarium from Abbott, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and Pfizer, fees for participation in review activities from Abbott, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and UCB, and payment for lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb. JLS received a research grant from Pfizer for conducting this study.

Role of the sponsors

Pfizer had no role in development of the model, interpretation of the simulated results or writing of the manuscript.

Author contributions

ATD designed and programmed the model, reviewed literature and performed statistical analyses for model inputs, ran the simulations, debugged the model, analysed the model outputs, designed and created the figures, and drafted the manuscript. AB assisted in drafting the manuscript. WK compiled the input data and estimated costs and utility. AB, WK, PLCMvR and MAFJvdL provided the first algorithm for treatment decisions. JLS assisted in conceptualising the model. All authors participated in discussion and refinement of the algorithm for treatment decisions, interpretation of the simulated results and review of the manuscript. ATD will serve as a guarantor for the entire contents of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

40273_2014_184_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (173 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 173 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pincus T, Yazici Y, Sokka T, Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Methotrexate as the “anchor drug” for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21(5 Suppl 31):179–85.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, Anuntiyo J, Finney C, Curtis JR, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2008;59(6):762–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, Dougados M, Emery P, Gaujoux-Viala C, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(6):964–75.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emery P, Van Vollenhoven R, Ostergaard M, Choy E, Combe B, Graninger W, et al. Guidelines for initiation of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: similarities and differences across Europe. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(4):456–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S5–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prevoo MLL, Van’t Hof MA, Kuper HH, Van Leeuwen MA, Van de Putte LBA, Van Riel P. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(1):44–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fransen J, van Riel P. The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5):93.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Bryan S, Burls A. The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–91.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davies A, Cifaldi MA, Segurado OG, Weisman MH. Cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(1):16–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saraux A, Gossec L, Goupille P, Bregman B, Boccard E, Dupont D, et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling of biological treatment sequences in moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in France. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(4):733–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Puolakka K, Blafield H, Kauppi M, Luosujarvi R, Peltomaa R, Leikola-Pelho T, et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling of sequential biologic strategies for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Finland. Open Rheumatol J. 2012;6:38–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brennan A, Bansback N, Nixon R, Madan J, Harrison M, Watson K, 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;46(8):1345–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cimmino MA, Leardini G, Salaffi F, Intorcia M, Bellatreccia A, Dupont D, et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of biologic agents for the management of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in anti-TNF inadequate responders in Italy: a modelling approach. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010;29(4):633–41.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beresniak A, Ariza-Ariza R, Garcia-Llorente JF, Ramirez-Arellano A, Dupont D. Modelling cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments based on disease activity scores for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain. Int J Inflam. 2011;2011:727634.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russell A, Beresniak A, Bessette L, Haraoui B, Rahman P, Thorne C, et al. 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. 2009;28(4):403–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ. 2003;12:837–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caro JJ. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23:323–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stahl J. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26:131–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tran-Duy A, Boonen A, van de Laar MAFJ, Franke AC, Severens JL. A discrete event modelling framework for simulation of long-term outcomes of sequential treatment strategies for ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:2111–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Welsing PMJ, van Gestel AM, Swinkels HL, Kiemeney LALM, Van Riel PLCM. The relationship between disease activity, joint destruction, and functional capacity over the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(9):2009–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Gestel AM, Haagsma CJ, van Riel PLCM. Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;41(10):1845–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Welsing PMJ, van Riel PLCM. The Nijmegen inception cohort of early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2004;69:14–21.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Welsing PMJ, Fransen J, van Riel PLCM. Is the disease course of rheumatoid arthritis becoming milder? Time trends since 1985 in an inception cohort of early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(9):2616–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chorus AMJ, Miedema HS, Wevers CJ, van der Linden S. Labour force participation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59(7):549–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DREAM. Dutch RhEumatoid Arthritis Monitoring. 2014. http://www.dreamregistry.nl. Accessed 15 Jan 2014.
  26. 26.
    Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3/4):591–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Breusch TS, Pagan AR. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica. 1979;47(5):1287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov EBN, Caski F, editors. Second international symposium on information theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado; 1973. p. 267–281.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23(2):137–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ramey DR, Raynauld JP, Fries JF. The health assessment questionnaire 1992: status and review. Arthritis Rheum. 1992;5(3):119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bruce B, Fries JF. The health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5):14.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen; 2010.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    CBS. Statline-Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. 2014. http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/. Accessed 1 Feb 2014.
  34. 34.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. PharmacoEconomics. 1996;10(5):460–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mullahy J. Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics. J Health Econ. 1998;17(3):247–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ. 2001;20(4):461–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zorginstituut Nederland. Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas 2014. http://www.farmacotherapeutischkompas.nl. Accessed 1 Feb 2014.
  38. 38.
    The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dolan PD, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A Social tariff for EuroQoL: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper No. 138. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Böhning D, Schlattmann P, Lindsay B. Computer-assisted analysis of mixtures (C.A.MAN): statistical algorithms. Biometrics. 1992;48(1):283–303.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hernández Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R. Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health. 2012;15(3):550–61.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    College voor Zorgverzekeringen. Richtlijnen farmaco-economisch onderzoek, geactualiseerde. Versie 2006.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods for technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2014.
  45. 45.
    Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(4):299–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J Health Econ. 1991;10(1):21–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Broome J. QALYs. J Public Econ. 1993;50(2):149–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dolan P. The measurement of individual utility and social welfare. J Health Econ. 1998;17(1):39–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-02012.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Böhning D, Dietz E, Schlattmann P. Recent developments in computer-assisted analysis of mixtures. Biometrics. 1998;54(2):525–36.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ripley BD. Stochastic simulation. New York: Wiley; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Genz A. Numerical computation of multivariate normal probabilities. J Comput Graph Stat. 1992;1(2):141–9.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling W, Flannery BP. Numerical recipes-the art of scientific computing. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Briggs A, Wonderling D, Mooney C. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997;6:327–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Selvin S. Survival analysis for epidemiologic and medical research: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JWJ, Breedveld FC, Boumpas D, Burmester G, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(4):631–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA, Szucs T, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6(3):217–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mihaylova B, Briggs A, O’Hagan A, Thompson SG. Review of statistical methods for analysing healthcare resources and costs. Health Econ. 2011;20(8):897–916.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, Lang HC, Bae SC, Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ. 2010;19(4):422–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(2):112–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    van Gestel A, Grutters J, Schouten J, Webers C, Beckers H, Joore M, et al. The role of the expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. Value Health. 2012;15(1):13–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ter Wee MM, Lems WF, Usan H, Gulpen A, Boonen A. The effect of biological agents on work participation in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(2):161–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • An Tran-Duy
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Annelies Boonen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wietske Kievit
    • 4
  • Piet L. C. M. van Riel
    • 4
  • Mart A. F. J. van de Laar
    • 5
  • Johan L. Severens
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA)Maastricht University Medical CenterMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal MedicineMaastricht University Medical CenterMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Caphri School for Public Health and Primary CareMaastricht UMC+MaastrichtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Rheumatic DiseasesRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Rheumatology and Clinical ImmunologyUniversity Twente & Medisch Spectrum TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Institute of Health Policy and ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations